Skip to main content

Full text of "The Remains of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury"

See other formats


This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 

to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 

publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 
We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at |http: //books .google .com/I 


















Answer to the False Calumniations of Dr. Richard Smythe. 

p. 1. 
Answer onto a Crafty and Sophistical Cavillation devised by 
Stephen Oardyner. p. 24. 

Preface to the Reader. p. 29. 

Book i. 33. 

Book iii. 93. 

Book iv. 312. 

Book ii. 363. 

Book V. 529. 

Matters wherein the Bishop of Winchester varied from other 
Papists. p. 555. 

Matters wherein the Bishop varied from himself. p. 558. 

Conoessa. p. 562. 

Matters wherein the Bishop varieth from the truths and from 
the old authors of the Church. p. 5Q6. 









A HAVE now obtained, gentle reader, that thing which I 
have much desired^ which was^ that if all men would not 
embrace the truth lately set forth by me concerning the sa- 
crament of the body and blood of our Saviour Christy at the 
least some man would vouchsafe . to take pen in hand, and 
write against my book^ because that thereby the truth might 
both better be searched out, and also more certainly known 
to the world. And herein I heartily thank the late Bishop 
of Winchester and Doctor Smythe, who partly have satisfied 
my long desire; saving that I would have wished adversaries 
more substantially learned in holy Scriptures^ more ex- 
ercised in the old ancient ecclesiastical authors, and having 
a more godly zeal to the trial out of the truths than are 

* [This short tract was appended to the Answer to Gardyner pub- 
lislied 1 Oct. 1551 ; but the expressions at the beginning and end 
prove it to have been written before. Whether or not it was also 
printed before does not appear. It again accompanied the Antwer 
&c. in the edition of 1580.1 

^ [The title of Smythe^ book was, A Confutation of the True and 
Catholic Doctrine, &c. Strype, Cranmer, (Oxford, 1812.) p. 1089. See 
also ibid. p. 255. and App. N". 61 ; and MemariaU, vol. ii. p. 43.] 



these two, both being crafty sophisters, the one by art, and 
the other by nature, both also being drowned in the dregs 
of papistry, brought up and confirmed in the same, the 
one by Duns and Dorbell and such like sophisters^ the 
other by the popish Canon Law, whereof by his degree taken 
in the University he is a professor. And as concerning the 
late Bishop of Winchester, I will declare his crafty sophisti- 
cations in mine answer unto his book. 

But Doctor Smithe, as it appeareth by the title of his Pre- 
face, hath craftily devised an easy way to obtain his purpose, 
that the people being barred from the searching of the truth, 
might be still kept in blindness and error, as well in this 
as in all other matters wherein they have been in times past 
Falsehood He seeth full well, that the more diligently matters be 
light, but searched out and discussed, the more clearly the craft and 
*t?^^S*'" falsehood of the subtle papists will appear. And therefore 
tried. in the Preface to the reader, he exhorteth all men to leave 
disputing and reasoning of the same by learning, and to give 
firm credit unto the Church, as the title of the said Pre^ 
face declareth manifestly. As who should say^ that the 
truth of any matter that is in question might be tried out, 
without debating and reasoning by the word of God, where- 
by, as by the true touchstone, all men^s doctrines are to be 
tried and examined. But the truth is not ashamed to come 
to the light, and to be tried to the uttermost. For as pure 
gold, the more it is tried, the more pure it appeareth, so is 
all manner of truth. Whereas on the other side all maskers, 
counterfeiters, and false deceivers abhor the light, and re- 
fuse the trial. If all men without right or reason would 
give credit unto this papist and his Romish Church, against 
the most certain word of God and the old holy and catholic 
Church of Christ, the matter should be soon at an end, and 
out of all ^controversy. But forasmuch as the pure word of 
God, and the first Church of Christ from the beginning, 
taught the true catholic faith, and Smith with his Church of 
Rome do now teach the clean contrary, the chaflp cannot be 
tried out from the pure corn (that is to say, the untruth dis- 


cemed from the very truth) without threshing, windowing, 
and fanning, searching, debating, and reasoning. 

As for me, I ground my belief upon God^s word, wherein Faith ought 
can be no error, having also the consent of the primitive -Quoded 
Church, requiring no man to believe me further than I have"Pon God's 
God's word for me. But these papists speak at their plea- the papists 
sure what they list, and would be believed without God's g^."°^.. 
word, because they bear men in hand, that they be the upon them- 
Church. The Church of Christ is not founded upon itself, ^^^■* 
but upon Christ and his word ; but the papists build their 
Church upon themselves, devising new articles of the faith 
from time to time, without any Scripture, and founding the 
same upon the Pope and his clergy, monks and friars, and 
by that means they be both the makers and judges of their 
faith themselves. Wherefore this papist, like a politic man, 
doth right wisely provide for himself and his Church, in the 
first entry of his book, that all men should leave search- 
ing for the truth, and stick hard and fast to the Church, 
meaning himself and the Church of Rome. For from the 
true catholic Church, the Romish Church which he account- 
eth catholic, hath varied and dissented many years passed, as 
the blindest that this day do live may well see and perceive, 
if they will not purposely wink and shut up their eyes. This 
I have written to answer the title of his Preface. 

Now in the be^nning of the very Preface itself, when this Epbesine 
great doctor should recite the words of Epbesine council^, cyrS tiic 
he translateth them so unleamedly, that if a young boy, that author of 
had gone to the grammar-school but three years, had done {„ ^he 
no better, he should scant have escaped some schoolmaster's Council. 
hands with six jerks. And beside that, he doeth it so 
craftily to serve his purpose, that he cannot be excused of 
wilful depravation of the words, calling celebration an offer- 
ing, and referring the participle ^^ made'' to Christ, which 
should be referred to the word ^^ partakers," and leaving out 
those words that should declare, that the said Council spake 

^ [See Authorities in the Appendix.] 



of no propitiatory sacrifice in the mass^ but of a sacrifice of 
laud and thanks, which Christian people give unto God at 
the holy communion, by remembrance of the death, resurrec- 
tion, and ascension of his Son Jesus Christ, and by confessing 
and setting forth of the same. 

Here by the ungodly handling of this godly Council at 
his first beginning, it may appear to every man how sin- 
cerely this papist intendeth to proceed in the rest of this 
Smyth be- And with like sincerity he untruly belieth the said Council, 
Coandf raying that it doth plainly set forth the holy sacrifice of the 
mass, which doth not so much as once name the mass, but 
speaketh of the sacrifice of the Church, which the said 
Council declareth to be the profession of Christian people in 
setting forth the benefit of Christ, who only made the true 
sacrifice propitiatory for remission of sin. And whosoever 
else taketh upon him to make any such sacrifice maketh 
himself Antichrist. 
Smith be- And then he belieth me in two things, as he useth com-^ 
twice°in monly throughout his whole book. The one is, that I deny 
one place, the sacrifice of the mass, which in my book have most plainly 
The first »«'gg^ Q^^ tj^g sacrifice of Christian people in the holy commu- 
nion or mass, (if Dr. Smyth will needs so term it,) and yet I 
have denied that it is a sacrifice propitiatory for sin, or that 
the priest alone maketh any sacrifice there. For it is the 
sacrifice of all Christian people to remember Christ^s death, 
to laud and thank him for it, and to publish it and show it 
abroad unto other, to his honour and glory. 

The controversy is not, whether in the holy communion 
be made a sacrifice or not, (for herein both Dr. Smyth and 
I agree with the foresaid Council at Ephesus,) but whether 
it be a propitiatory sacrifice or not, and whether only the 
priest make the said sacrifice; these be the points wherein we 
vary. And I say so far as the Council saith, that there is a 
sacrifice, but that the same is propitiatory for remission of 
sin^ or that the priest alone doth offer it, neither I nor the 
Council do so say, but Dr. Smyth hath added that of his 
^ own vain head. 


The other thing wherein Dr. Smyth belieth me is this : The sccoud 
he saith that I deny, that we receive in the sacrament that ' 
flesh which is adjoined to God^s own Son. I marvel not a little 
what eyes Doctor Smyth had, when he read over my book. 
It is like that he hath some privy spectacles within his head, 
wherewith whensoever he looketh^ he seeth but what he list. 
For in my book I have written in mo than an hundred 
places, that we receive the selfsame body of Christ that was 
bom of the Virgin Mary, that was crucified and buried, that 
rose again, ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right 
hand of God the Father Almighty. And the contention is 
only in the manner and form how we receive it. 

For I say (as all the old holy fathers and martyrs used to 
say), that we receive Christ spiritually by faith with our 
minds, eating his flesh and drinking his blood : so that we 
receive Christ^s own very natural body, but not naturally 
nor corporally. But this lying papist saith, that we eat his 
natural body corporally with our mouths, which neither the 
Council Ephesine, nor any other ancient Council or doctor 
ever said or thought. 

And the controversy in the Council Ephesine was not of 
the uniting of Chrisfs flesh to the forms of bread and wine 
in the sacrament, but of the uniting of his flesh to his 
Divinity at his incarnation in unity of person. Which thing 
Nestorius the heretic denied, confessing that Christ was a 
godly man as other were, but not that he was very God in 
nature: which heresy that holy Council confuting, afiirmeth 
that the flesh of Christ was so joined in person to the Divine 
nature, that it was made the proper flesh of the Son of God, 
and flesh that gave life : but that the said flesh was present 
in the sacrament corporally, and eaten with our mouths, no 
mention is made thereof in that Council. 

And here I require Dr. Smyth, as proctor for the papists, 
either to bring forth some ancient Council or doctor that 
saith as he saith, that Christ'*s own natural body is eaten 
corporally with our mouths, (understanding the very body 
in deed, and not the signs of the body, as Chrysostome doth,) 
or else let him confess that my saying is true^ and recant 



his false doctrine the third time, as he hath done twice 

Smytii Then forth goeth this papist with his Preface, and 

Christ saith, that these words, '^ This is my body that shall be given 

called not a ^^ death for you,'' no man can truly understand of bread. 

body. And his proof thereof is this, because that bread was not 

crucified for us. First here he maketh a lie of Christ. For 

Christ said not, as this papist allegeth, ^' This is my body 

" which shall be ^ven to death for you," but only he saith, 

Lac. xxii. 7%{« ijt my body which is given Jbr youy which words some 

understand not of the giving of the body of Christ to death, 

but of the breaking and giving of bread to his Apostles, as 

I Cor. X. St. Paul said. The bread which we breaks &c. 

But let it be, that he spake of the giving of his body to 
death, and said of the bread, ^^ This is my body which shall 
** be pven to death for you C by what reason can you 
gather hereof, that the bread was crucified for us P 

If I look upon the image of King David, and say, ' This 
^ is he that killed Goliath,' doth this speech mean, that the 
image of King David killed Goliath ? or if I hold in my 
hand my book of St. John's Gospel, and say, ' This is the 
^ Gospel that St. John wrote at Pathmos,' (which fashion of 
speech is commonly used,) doth it follow hereof that my book 
was written at Pathmos ? or that St. John wrote my book, 
which was but newly printed at Paris by Robert Stephanus ? 
or if I say of my book of St. Paul's Epistles, ' This is Paul 

* that was the great persecutor of Christ,' doth this manner 
of speech signify that my book doth persecute Christ ? Or 
if I show a book of the New Testament, saying, * This is the 

* New Testament which brought life into the world,' by what 
form of argument can you induce hereof, that my book that 
I bought but yesterday brought life into the world ? No man 
that useth thus to speak, doth mean of the books, but of the 
very things themselves that in the books be taught and con- 
tained. And after the same wise, if Christ called bread his 

** [See Strype, Crflnwcr, p. 171. and App. N^. 39; and Memorials, 
vol. li. p. 39.J 


body, saying, ^^ This is my body which shall be given to 
•* death for you,'*' yet he meant not, that the bread should 
be given to death for us, but his body which by the bread 
was signified. 

If this excellent clerk and doctor understand not these 
manner of speeches, that be so plain, then hath he both lost his 
senses, and forgotten his grammar, which teacheth to refer 
the relative to the next antecedent. But of these figurative 
speeches I have spoken at large in my third book ; first in 
the viiith chapter, proving by authority of the oldest authors 
in Christ's Church, that he called bread his body^ and wine 
his blood ; and again in the ixth, xth, xith, and xiith chap- 
ters, I have so fully entreated of such figurative speeches, 
that it should be but a superfluous labour here to speak 
thereof any more : but I refer the reader to those places. 

And if Mr. doctor require a further answer herein, let 
him look upon the late Bishop of Winchester's book^ called 
the Detection of the DeviTs Sophistry ^ where he writeth 
plainly, that when Christ spake these words, This is my 
body, he made demonstration of the bread. 

Then further in this Prologue this papist is not ashamed letting of 
to say, that I set the cart before the horses, putting reason fore the 
first and faith after ; which lie is so manifest, that it needeth ^**^^^' 
no further proof but only to look upon my book, wherein it 
shall evidently appear, that in all my five books I ground 
my foundation upon God's word. And lest the papists 
should say, that I make the expositions of the Scripture my- 
self, as they commonly use to do, I have fortified my foun- 
dation by the authority of all the best learned and most 
holy authors and martyrs, that were in the beginning of the 
Church and many years after, until the Antichrist of Rome 
rose up and corrupted altogether. 

And as for natural reason, I make no mention thereof in 
all my five books^ but in one place only, which is in my 
second book, speaking of transubstantiation. And in that 
place I set not reason before faith, but, as an handmaiden, 
have appointed her to do service unto faith, and to wait 

B 4 


upon her. And in that place she hath done such service, 
that Dr. Smyth durst not once look her in the face, nor find 
any fault with her service, but hath slyly and craftily stolen 
away by her, as though he saw her not. 

But in his own book he hath so impudently set the cart 
before the horses in Christ's own words, putting the words 
behind that go before, and the words before that go behind, 
that, except a shameless papist, no man durst be so bold to 
attempt any such thing of his own head. For where the 
Matt. xxvi. Evangelist and St. Paul rehearse Chrisf s words thus : Tdke^ 
eat^ this is my body, he in the confutation of my second 
book tumeth the order upside down, and saith, ^' This is 
" my body, take and eat.*" 
Of the won- After this in his Preface he rehearseth a creat number of 
works of ^^^ wonderful works of God, as that God made all the 
^^' world of naught, that he made Adam of the earth and Eve 

of his side, the bush to flame with fire and burn not, and 
many other like, which be most manifestly expressed in holy 
Scripture. And upon these he concludeth most vainly and 
untruly that thing which in the Scripture is neither ex- 
pressed nor understanded, that Christ is corporally in heaven 
and in earth, and in every place where the sacrament is. 

And yet Dr. Smith saith, that God^s word doth teach 
this as plainly as the other, using herein such a kind of 
sophistical argument, as all lo^cians do reprehend, which 
is called peiitio prindpiiy when a man taketh that thing for 
a supposition and an approved truth, which is in contro- 
versy. And so doth he in this place, when he saith : ^^ Doth 
^^ not Code's word teach it thee as plainly as the other .'*'" Here 
by this interrogatory he required that thing to be granted 
him as a truth, which he ought to prove, and whereupon 
dependeth the whole matter that is in question ; that is to 
say, whether it be as plainly set out in the Scripture, that 
Christ's body is corporally in every place where the sacra- 
ment is, as that God created all things of nothing, Adam of 
the earth, and Eve of Adams's side, 8ec. This is it that I 
deny, and that he should prove. But he taketh it for a 
suppo^tion, saying by interrogation, ^' Doth not the word of 


^^ God teach this as plainly as the other ?^ which I aifirm to 
be utterly false, as I have showed in my third book, the 
xith and xiith chapters, where I have most manifestly 
proved, as well by God'^s word as by ancient authors, that 
these words of Christ, This is my icM2^,and, This is my bloody 
be no plain speeches, but figurative. 

Then forth goeth this papist unto the sixth chapter of 
St. John, saying, ^* Christ promised his disciples to give 
** them such bread as should be his own very natural flesh, 
*' which he would give to death for the life of the world. 
^^ Can this his promise,*" saith Mr. Smith, ^^ be verified of Jobo ▼!. 
** common bread? Was that given upon the cross for the 
" life of the world P"* 

Whereto I answer by his own reason. Can this his pro- 
mise be verified of sacramental bread ? Was that given upon 
the cross for the life of the world. I marvel here not a 
little of Mr. Smithes either dulness or maliciousness, that 
cannot or will not see, that Christ in this chapter of St. 
John spake not of sacramental bread, but of heavenly bread : 
nor of his flesh only, but also of his blood and of his God- 
head, calling them heavenly bread that giveth everlasting 
life. So that he spake of himself wholly, saying, / am 
the bread of life : he that cometh to me shall not hunger ; 
and he that believelh in me shall not thirst Jbr ever. And 
neither spake he of common bread, nor yet of sacramental 
bread : for neither of them was given upon the cross for 
the life of the world. 

And there can be nothing more manifest than that in 
this sixth chapter of John, Christ spake not of the sa^ 
crament of his flesh, but of his very flesh. And that, as 
well for that the sacrament was not then instituted, as also 
that Christ said not in the future tense, 'The bread which I 
will give shall be my flesh,^ but in the present tense. The 
bread which I xciUgivej is myfiesh; which sacramental bread 
was neither then his flesh, nor was then instituted for a sa- 
crament, nor was after given to death for the life of the 



John iv. But as Christ, when he said unto the woman of Samaria, 

The water which I wiU give, shaU spring into everlasting 
Itfe^ he meant neither of material water, nor of the accidents 
of water, but of the Holy Ghost, which is the heavenly 
fountain that springeth unto eternal life : so likewise when 
John Ti. he said, The bread which I will give^ is my Jlesh which I 
wtUgiveJbr the life of the worlds he meant neither of the 
material bread, neither of the accidents of bread, but of his 
own flesh. Which although of itself it availeth nothing, yet 
being in unity of person joined unto his Divinity, it is the 
same heavenly bread that he gave to death upon the cross 
for the life of the world. 

But here Mr. Smyth asketh a question of the time, saying 
thus : ** When gave Christ that bread which was his very 
**' flesh diat he gave for us to death, if he did it not at his 

last Supper, when he said, This is my body that shall be 

given Jbr you ?^ 

I answer, according to CyriPs^ mind upon the same place, 
that Christ alone suflered for us all, and by his wounds 
were we healed, he bearing our sins in his body upon a tree, 
and being crucified for us^ that by his death we might live. 

But what need I, Mr. Smith, to labour in answering to 
your question of the time, when your question in itself con- 
taineth the answer, and appointeth the time of Christ giving 
himself for the life of the world P when you say, that he 
gave himself for us to death, which^ as you confess scant 
three lines before, was not at his supper, but upon the 

And if you will have none other giving of Christ for us 
but at his supper, (as your reason pretendeth, or else it is ut^ 
terly naught,) then surely Christ is much bound unto you, 
that have delivered him from all his mocking, whipping, 
scourging, crucifying, and all other pains of death, which he 
suflered for us upon the cross, and bring to pass that he was 
given only at his supper without blood or pain, for the life 
of the world. But then is all the world little beholding 

^ [Cyril, In Joan, lib. iv. cap. 12. See Authorities in the Appendix.] 



unto you, that by delivering of Christ from death will 
suffer all the world to remain in death, which can have no 
life but by his death. 

After the Gospel of St. John, Mr. Smyth allegeth forTheplaceof 
his purpose St. Paul to the Corinthians, who biddeth every ^ cor."' 
man to examine himself befbre he receive Hits sacramentyjbr 
he that eateth and drinheth it unworthily, is guilty of the 
body and blood of Christ, eating and drinking his own 
damnation^ because fie discemeth not our Lord's body. 

Here by the way it is to be noted, that Dr. Smyth in re- 
citing the words of St. Paul doth alter them purposely, com- 
monly putting this word *^ sacrament,**^ in the stead of these 
words ** bread and wine,^ (which words he seemeth so much 
to abhor as if they were toads or serpents, because they make 
against his transubstantiation,) whereas St. Paul ever useth 
those words, and never nameth 4his word ^^ sacrament.^ 

But to the matter : '* What need we to examine our- 
" selves,*" saith Dr. Smith, " when we shall eat but common 
^^ bread, and drink wine of the grape ? Is a man guilty of 
** the body and blood of Christ, which eateth and drinketh 

nothing else but only bare bread made of corn, and mere 

wine of the grape ?^ Who saith so, good sir ? Do I say in 
my book, that those which come to the Lord^s table do eat 
nothing else but bare bread made of corn, nor drink nothing 
but mere wine made of grapes ? How often do I teach and 
repeat again and again, that as corporally with our mouths 
we eat and drink the sacramental bread and wine, so spirit- 
ually with our hearts, by faith, do we eat Christ'^s very flesh 
and drink his very blood, and do both feed and live spiritually 
by him« although corporally he be absent from us, and sit- 
teth in heaven at his Father^s right hand. And as in bap- 
tism we come not unto the water as we come to other com- 
mon waters, when we wash our hands or bathe our bodies, 
but we know that it is a mystical water, admonishing us of 
the great 9nd manifold mercies of God towards us, of the 
league and promise made between him and us, and of his 
wonderful working and operation in us : wherefore wc 


come to that water with such fear, reverence, and humility, 
as we would come to the presence of the Father, the Son, 
and the Holy Ghost, and of Jesus Christ himself both God 
and man ; although he be not corporally in the water, but 
in heaven above : and whosoever cometh to that water, 
being of the age of discretion, must examine himself duly, 
lest if he come unworthily, (none otherwise than he would 
come unto other common waters,) he be not renewed in 
Christ, but in the stead of salvation receive his damna- 
tion : 

Even so it is of the bread and wine in the Lord^s holy 
Supper. Wherefore every man, as St. Paul saith, must 
examine himself when he shall approach to that holy table, 
and not come to God'^s board as he would do to common 
feasts and banquets, but must consider that it is a mystical 
table, where the bread is mystical, and the wine also mystical, 
wherein we be taught that we spiritually feed upon Christ, 
eating him and drinking him, and as it were sucking out of 
his side the blood of our redemption and food of eternal sal- 
vation, although he be in heaven at his Father^s right hand. 
And whosoever cometh unto this heavenly table, not having 
r^ard to Chrisfs flesh and blood, who should be there our 
spiritual food, but cometh thereto without faith, fear, hu- 
mility, and reverence, as it were but to carnal feeding, he 
doth not there feed upon Christ, but the Devil doth feed 
upon him, and devoureth him, as he did Judas. 

And now may every man perceive, how fondly and falsely 
Mr. Smyth concludeth of these words of St. Paul, that our 
Saviour Clirisf s body and blood is really and corporally in 
the sacrament. 

Master Afteb this he falleth to railing, lying, and slandering of 

Peter Mar- j|,.^ Peter Martyr, a man of that excellent learning and 
godly living, that he passeth Dr. Smyth as far as the sun in 
his clear light passeth the moon being in the eclipse. 

Peter Martyr,'' saith he, *' at his first coming to Oxford, 

when he was but a Lutheran in this matter, taught as Dr. 

*' Smyth now doth. But when he came once to the Court, 


'< and saw that doctrine misliked them, that might do him 
^' hurt in his living, he anon after turned his tippet and 
*^ sang another song.^ 

Of Mr. Peter Martyr his opinion and judgment in this 
matter no man can better testify than I. Forasmuch as he 
lodged within my house long before he came to Oxford ; 
and I had with him many conferences in that matter, and 
know that he was then of the same mind that he is now, 
and as he defended after openly in Oxford, and hath written 
in his book. And if Dr. Smyth understood him otherwise 
in his lectures at the beginning, it was for lack of knowledge, 
for that then Dr. Smyth understood not the matter, nor yet 
doth not, as it appeareth by this foolish and unlearned book 
which he hath now set out. 

No more than he understood my book of the Catechism, 
and therefore reporteth untruly of me, that I in that book 
did set forth the real presence of Chrisf s body in the sacra- 
ment. Unto which false report I have answered in my 
fourth book the eighth chapter. 

But this I confess of myself, that not long before I wrote 
the said Catechism, I was in that error of the real presence, 
as I was many years past in divers other errors, as of tran- 
substantiation, of the sacrifice propitiatory of the priests in 
the mass, of pilgrimages, purgatory, pardons^ and many 
other superstitions and errors that came from Rome, being 
brought up from youth in them, and nouseled therein for 
lack of good instruction from my youth, the outrageous 
floods of papistical errors at that time overflowing the 
world. For the which and other mine oflences in youth, 1 
do daily pray unto God for mercy and pardon, saying: 
DelictaJuventuHs mece et iffnorantias meas^ ne meminerisy 
Domine. Good Lord^ remember not mine ignorances and 
offences of my youth. 

But after it had pleased God to show unto me by his holy 
word a more perfect knowledge of his son Jesus Christ, 
from time to time as I grew in knowledge of him, by little 
and little I put away my former ignorance. And as God 
of his mercy gave me light, so through his grace I opened 


mine eyes to receive it, and did not wilfully repugn unto 
Grod, and remain in darkness. And I trust in God^s mercy 
and pardon for my former errors, because I erred but of 
frailness and ignorance. And now I may say of myself as 
St. Paul said ; When I was like a babe or child in the know- 
I Cor.xiii. ledge of Christ, I spake like a child and understood like a 
child ; but now that I am come to man^s estate, and growing 
in Christ through his grace and mercy, I have put away 
that childishness. 

Now after that Doctor Smith hath thus untruly belied 
both me and Master Peter Martyr, he falleth into his ex- 
clamations, saying : *^ O Lord ! what man is so mad to believe 
*^ such mutable teachers, which change their doctrine at 
^^ men^s pleasure, as they see advantage and profit .** They 
^' turn and will turn as the wind tumeth.^ 

Do you not remember, Mr. Smith, the fable, how the old 
crab rebuked her young, that they went not straight forth ; 
and the common experience that those that look a squint, 
sometimes find fault with them that look right ? You have 
turned twice, and retracted your errors, and the third time 
promised, and breaking your promise ran awayS. And find 
you fault with me and Mr. Peter Martyr, as though we for 
men^s pleasures turn like the wind, as we see advantage.^ 
Shall the weathercock of PauPs, that tumeth about with 
every wind, lay the fault in the Church, and say that it 
turneth ? 

I will not here answer for myself, but leave the judgment 
to God, (who seeth the bottom of all men'^s hearts, and at 
whose only judgment I shall stand or fall,) saving that this 
I will say before God, who is every where present, and 
knoweth all things that be done, that as for seeking to 
please men in this matter, I think my conscience clear, that 
I never sought herein but only the pleasure and glory of 
God. And yet will I not judge myself herein, nor take 
Dr. Smyth for my judge, but will refer the judgment to 
him that is the rightful Judge of all men. But as for Dr. 
Peter Martyr, hath he sought to please men for advantage ? 

8 [See Strype, Cranmery pp. 172, 30S.] 


who having a great yearly revenue in his own country, for- 
sook all for Christ's sake, and for the truth and glory of 
God came into strange countries where he had neither land 
nor friends, but as God of his goodness, who never for- 
saketh them that put their trust in him, provided for him. 

But after his exclamation, this papist retumeth to the 
matter, saying, " Tell me, why may not Christ's body be The argn- 
** as well in the sacrament and in heaven both at once, asj^"'^^^**® 
** that his body was in one proper place with the body of sepulchre. 
** the stone that lay still upon his grave, when he rose from 
** death to life ? and as his body was in one proper place at 
<* once with the body of the door or gate, when, the same 
'* being shut, he entered into the house where the Apostles 
" were ?'^ 

Make you these two things all one, Mr. Smyth, divers 
bodies to be in one place, and one body to be in divers places? 
If Christ's body had been in one place with the substance of 
the stone or door and at the same time, then you might 
well have proved thereby, that his body may as well be in 
one place with the substance of bread and wine. But what 
availeth this to prove that his body may be in divers places 
at one time ? which is nothing like to the other, but rather 
clean contrary. Marry, when Christ arose out of the sepul- 
chre, or came into the house when the doors were shut, if 
you can prove that at the same time he was in heaven, then 
were that to some purpose, to prove that his body may be 
corporally in heaven and earth both at one time. 

And yet the controversy here in this matter is not what 
may be, but what is. God can do many things, which he 
neither doth, nor will do. And to us his will, in things that 
appear not to our senses, is not known but by his word. 
Christ's body may be as well in the bread and wine as in 
the door and stone, and yet it may be also in the door and 
stone, and not in the bread and wine. 

But if we will stretch out our faith no further than God's 
word doth lead us, neither is Christ's body corporally pre- 
sent in one proper place with the bread and wine, nor was 


also with the stone or door. For the Scripture saith in no 

place that the body of Christ was in the door, or in the 

stone that covered the sepulchre^ but it saith plainly, that 

Matt. an angel came down from fieaven, and removed away the 

^*^'"' stone from the sepulchre^ and tlie rcomen thai came to see 

the septdchre found the stone removed away. And although 

Mark xvi. the Gospel say, that Christ came into the Jumse when the 

^ ^^^' door was shut, yet it sayeth not that Christ's body was 

within the door, so that the door and it occupied both but 

one place. 

But peradventure Mr. Smyth will ask me this question, 
' How could Christ come into the house, the door being shut, 
' except he came through the door? and that his body must 
' be in the door.' To your wise question, Mr. Smyth, I will 
answer by another question : Could not Christ come as well 
into the house when the door was shut, as the Apostles 
could go out of prison the door being shut ? Could not God 
work this thing, except the Apostles must go through the 
door, and occupy the same place that the door did? Or 
could not Christ do so much for his own self, as he did for 
his Apostles ? 

But Mr. Smith is so blind in his own phantasies, that he 
seeth not how much his own examples make against him- 
self. For if it be like in the sacrament as it was in the stone 
and door, and Christ's body was in one proper place with 
the body and substance of the stone and door, then must 
Christ's body in the sacrament be in one proper place with 
the body and substance of bread and wine. And so he 
must then confess that there is no transubstantiation. 

iTie ap- Then from the door and sepulchre, Dr. Smyth cometh 

alriluir^ to the revelations of Peter and Paul, which saw Christ, as 
Ilia Rsccn- he saith, bodily upon earth after his ascension. Which de- 
clareth, that although Christ departed hence at the time of his 
ascension into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of 
his Father, yet he may be also here in the blessed sacrament 
of the altar. I am not so ignorant but I know that Christ ** 
^ [See Cranmer'fl discussion of this point with Lambert, in a note to 



appeared to St. Paul, and said to him : Satd^ Saul, why Acu xi. 
dost thou persecute me f But St. Augustine saith, that Christ St. Aaga». 
at bis ascension spake the last words that ever he spake upon ^^^' 
earth. And yet we find that Christ speaketh, saith he, but in 
heaven and from heaven, and not upon earth. For he 
spake to Paul from above, saying : Saul, Saul, why dost thou 
persecute me ? The head was in heaven, and yet he said : 
Why dost thou persecute mef because he persecuted his 
members upon earth. 

And if this please not Master Smith, let him blame St. 
Augustine and not me, for I feign not this myself, but only 
allege St. Augustine. 

And as the Father spake from heaven, when he said: 
This is my beloved Son, in whom I am pleased, and alsoMatth. Hi. 
St. Stephen saw Christ sitting in heaven at his Father's" *^"' 
right hand : even so meant St. Augustine, that St. Paul, 
and all other that have seen and heard Christ speak since Acts rU. 
his ascension, have seen and heard him from heaven. 

Now when this papist, going forward with his works. The 
seeth his building so feeble and weak that it is not able^^"''^ 
to stand, he retunieth to his chief foundation, the Church 
and Councils General, willing all men to stay thereupon, 
and to leave disputing and reasoning. And chiefly he 
shoreth up his house with the Council Lateranense, where- 
at, saith he^ were thirteen hundred fathers and fifteen. 
But he telleth not, that eight hundred of them were 
monks, friars, and canons, the Bishop of Homers own dear 
darlings and chief champions, called together in his name 
and not in Christ^s. From which brood of vipers and ser- 
pents what thing can be thought to come, but that did pro- 
ceed from the spirit of their most holy father that first 
b^at them, that is to say, from the spirit of Antichrist. 

And yet I know this to be true, that Christ is present 
with his holy Church, which is his holy elected people^ and 
shall be with them to the world^'s end, leading and govem- 

Examinaiion before Brakes at Oxford^ or in Foxe, Acts and Monu- 
mentSf vol. ii. p. 435.] 



ing them with his holy Spirit, and teaching them all truth 
necessary for their salvation. And whensoever any such be 
gathered together in his name, there is he among them, and 
he shall not suffer the gates of hell to prevail against them. 
For although he may suffer them by their own frailness for 
a time to err, fall, and to die, yet finally, neither Satan, 
hell, »n, nor eternal death, shall prevair against them. 

But it is not so of the Church and see of Rome, which ac- 
counteth itself to be the holy catholic Church, and the 
Bishop thereof to be most holy of all other. For many 
* years ago Satan hath so prevailed against that stinking 
whore of Babylon, that her abominations be known to the 
whole world, the name of Grod is by her blasphemed, and of 
the cup of her drunkenness and poison have all nations tasted. 

Tbetnie Aftek this cometh Smyth to Berengarius, Almericus, 
^ c^^h'' Carolostadius, OBcolampadius, and Zuinglius, affirming that 
from the be- the Church ever sithence Chrisfs time a thousand five hun- 
aDd°w!u ^"^ years and mo, hath believed that Christ is bodily in 
not tanght the sacrament^ and never taught otherwise until Berenga- 
renganas. ""^ came, about a thousand years after Christ, whom the 
other followed. 

But in my book I have proved by God^s word and the 
old andent authors, that Christ is not in the sacrament cor- 
porally, but is bodily and corporally ascended into heaven, 
and there shall remain unto the world's end. 

And so the true Church of Christ ever believed from the 
beginning without repugnance, until Satan was let loose, 
and Antichrist came with his papists, which feigned a new 
and false doctrine contrary to God^s word and the true 
catholic doctrine. 

And this true faith God preserveth in his holy Church 
still, and will do unto the world^s end, maugre the wicked 
Antichrist and all the gates of hell. And Almighty God 
from time to time hath strengthened many holy martyrs 
for this faith to suffer death by Antichrist and the great 
harlot of Babylon, who hath embrued her hands, and is 
made drunken with the blood of martyrs. Whose blood 


(tikI will revenge at length, although in the mean time he 
suffer the patience and faith of his holy saints to be tried. 

All the rest of his Preface containeth nothing else but ^liat 
the authority of the Church, which, Smith saith, cannot tfait cannot 
wholly err : and he so setteth forth and extolleth the same, ^'''^- 
that he preferreth it above God^s word, affirming not only 
that it is the pillar of truth, and no less to be believed than 
holy Scripture; but also that we should not believe holy 
Scripture but for it. So that he maketh the word of men 
equal or above the word of God. 

And truth it is indeed, that the Church doth never wholly 
err, for ever in most darkness God shineth unto his elect, 
and in the midst of all iniquity he governeth them so with 
his holy word and Spirit, that the gates of hell prevail not 
against them. And these be known to him, although the 
world many times know them not, but hath them in derision 
and hatred, as it had Christ and his Apostles. Neverthe- 
less at the last day they shall be known to all the whole 
world, when the wicked shall wonder at their felicity, and 
say : ' These be they whom we sometime had in derision 
' and mocked. We fools thought their lives very madness, Sap.r. 
^ and their end to be without honour. But now lo, how 

* they be accounted among the children of God, and their 
' portion is among the saints. Therefore we have erred from 

* the way of truth, the light of righteousness hath not shined 

* unto us, we have wearied ourselves in the way of wicked- 

* ness and destruction.** 

But this holy Church is so unknown to the world, that 
no man can discern it, but God alone, who only searcheth Psal. vii. 
the hearts of all men, and knoweth his true children from * *™' "' 
other that be but bastards. 

This Church is the pillar of truth, because it resteth 
upon God^'s word, which is the true and sure foundation, 
and will not suffer it to err and fall. But as for the open i Tiic.iii. 
known Church, and the outward face thereof, it is not the 
pillar of truth, otherwise than that it is, as it were, a register 
or treasury to keep the books of God's holy will and testa- 



ment, and to rest only thereupon, as St. Augustine and 
Tertullian mean, in the places by Mr. Smith alleged. 

And as the register keepeth all men^s wills, and yet hath 
none authority to add, change, or take away any thing, nor 
yet to expound the wills further than the very words of 
the will extend unto, (so that he hath no power over the 
will, but by the will,) even so hath the Church no further 
power over the holy Scripture, which containeth the will 
and testament of God, but only to keep it, and to see it ob- 
served and kept. For if the Church proceed further, to 
make any new articles of the faith, besides the Scripture, 
or contrary to the Scripture, or direct not the form of life 
acco^ing to the same, then it is not the pillar of truths nor 
the Church of Christ, but the sjmagogue of Satan, and the 
temple of Antichrist, which both erreth itself, and bringeth 
into error as many as do follow it. 

And the holy Church of Christ is but a small herd or 
Lakexii. flock, in comparison to the great multitude of them that 
follow Satan and Antichrist, as Christ himself saith, and the 
word of God and the course of the world from the begin- 
ning until this day hath declared. 

For from the creation of the world until Noe^s flood, 
what was then the open face of the earth ? How many godly 
men were in those thousand and ax hundred years and mo ? 
Gen. rii. Did not iniquity begin at Cain to rule the world, and so in- 
creased more and more, that at the length Grod could no 
longer sufi^er, but drowned all the world for sin, except 
eight persons, which only were left upon the whole earth ? 

And after the world was purged by the flood, fell it not 
Gen. xii. by and by to the former iniquity again ? so that within few 
years after, Abraham could And no place where he might be 
suffered to worship the true living God, but that God ap- 
pointed him a strange country, almost clearly desolate and 
un habited ; where he and a few other, contrary to the usage 
of the world, honoured one God. 

And after the great benefits of (xod showed unto his 
people of Israel, and the law also given unto them, whereby 
they were taught to know him, and honour him, yet how 


many times did they fall from him? Did they not from 
time to time make them new gods> and worship them ? Was 
not the open face of the Church so miserably deformed, not 
only in the wilderness, and in the time of the judges, but 
also in the time of the kings, that after the division of the 
kingdom, amongst all the kings of Juda there was but only Ecdus-xluc. 
three, in whose times the true religion was restored, and 
among all the kings of Israel not so much as one. Were 
not all that time the true priests of God a few in number ? 
Did not all the rest maintain idolatry and all abominations 
in groves and mountains, worshipping Baal and other false 
gods. And did they not murder and slay all the true pro- 
phets that taught them to worship the true God P Insomuch 
that Helias the Prophet, knowing no mo of all the whole 
people that followed the right trade, but himself alone, made 
his complaint unto Almighty God, saying : O Lord^ they i Reg. ziz. 
have slain thy prophets^ and overthrown thine altars^ and 
there is no mo left but I aloney and yet they lie in wait to 
slay me also. So that although Almighty God suffered 
them in their captivity at Babylon no more but seventy Jcrem.xxv. 
years, yet he suffered them in their idolatry, following their *° *^'*' 
own ways and inventions, many hundred years, the mercy Acts xW. 
of God being so great, that their punishment was short and 
small, in respect of their long and grievous offences. And 
at the time of Chrisf s coming, the high priests came to their 
offices by such fraud, simony, murder, and poisoning, that 
the like hath not been often read nor heard of, except only 
at Rome. 

And when Christ was come, what godly religion found 
be ? What Annasses and Cayphasses ? what hypocrisy, su- 
perstition, and abomination before God, although to men^s 
eyes things appeared holy and godly ? Was not then Christ 
alone and his Apostles, with other that believed his doctrine, 
the holy and true Church ? Although they were not so 
taken, but for heretics, seditious persons, and blasphemers 
of God, and were extremely persecuted and put to villainous 
death, by such as accounted themselves and were taken for 
the Church, which fulfilled the measure of their fathers that 



Matth. xiii. persecuted the prophets. Upon whom came all the right- 
eous blood that was shed upon the earth, from the blood of 
just Abel unto the blood of Zacharye, the son of Barachie, 
whom they slew between the temple and the altar. 

And how many persons remained constantly in the true 
lively faith, at the time of Christ^ s passion ? I think Master 

Matt. xxYu Smith will say but a very few, seeing that Peter denied 
Christ his Master three times, and all his Apostles fled away, 
and one for haste without his clothes. 

What wonder is it then, that the open Church is now of 
late years fallen into many errors and corruption, and the 
holy Church of Christ is secret and unknown ? seeing that 
Satan these five hundred years hath been let loose, and 
Antichrist reigneth, spoiling and devouring the simple flock 

1 Reg. zix. of Christ. But as Almighty God said unto Helias : / have 
reserved and kept for mine ozcn self seven thousand which 
never bowed their knee to Baal, so it is at this present. 
For although Almighty God hath sufiered these four or five 
hundred years, the open face of his Church to be ugly de- 
formed, and shamefully defiled by the sects of the papists, 
(which is so manifest, that now all the world knoweth it,) 
yet hath God of his manifold mercy, ever preserved a good 
number, secret to himself, in his true religion, although 
Antichrist hath bathed himself in the blood of no small 
number of them. 

And although the papists have led innumerable people 
out of the right way, yet the Church is to be followed, but 
the Church of Christ, not of Antichrist : the Church, that 
concerning the faith containeth itself within God'*s word, not 
that deviseth daily new articles contrary to God^s word: 
the Church, that by the true interpretation of Scripture 
and good example gathereth people unto Christ, not that by 
wresting of the Scripture, and evil example of corrupt 
living, draweth them away from Christ. 

And now forasmuch as the wicked Church of Rome, 
counterfeiting the Church of Christ, hath in this matter of 
the sacrament of the blessed body and blood of our Saviour 
Christy varied from the pure and holy Church in the Apo- 


stles^ time, and many hundred years after, (as in my book I 
have plainly declared, and manifestly proved,) it is an easy 
matter to discern which Church is to be followed. And I 
cannot but marvel, that Smith allegeth for him Vincentius 
Lirenensis, who, contrary to Doctor Smyth, teacheth plainly, 
that the canon of the Bible is perfect and sufficient of itself 
for the truth of the catholic faith: and that the whole 
Church cannot make one article of the faith, although it 
may be taken as a necessary witness, for the receiving and 
establishing of the same, with these three conditions, that the 
thing which we would establish thereby, hath been believed 
in all places, ever, and of all men. Which the papistical 
doctrine in this matter hath not been, but came from Rome 
since Berengarius^ time^ by Nicolas the Second, Innocentius 
the Third, and other of their sort : whereas the doctrine 
which I have set forth, came from Christ and his Apostles, 
and was of all men every where with one consent taught 
and believed, as my book showeth plainly, until the papists 
did transform and transubstantiate the chief articles of our 
Christian faith. 

Thus is an answer made unto the false calumniations 
of Smith in the Preface of his book, or rather unto his 
whole book, which is so full of bragging, boasting, slander- 
ing, misreporting, wrangling, wresting, false construing, 
and lying, that, those taken out of the book, there is 
nothing worthy in the whole book to be answered. Never- 
theless in answering to the late Bishop of Wynchester's book, 
I shall fully answer also Doctor Smith in all points that re- 
quire answer. And so with one answer shall I dispatch 
them both. And in some places where one of them varieth 
from another, (as they do in many great matters, and in the 
chief and principal points,) I shall set them together, Bi- 
thum cum BachiOi et Esemium cum Pacidiano, to try which 
of them is more stout and valiant to overthrow the other. 


C 4 














Against the true and godly Doctrine of the most holy Sacrament of the Body 

and Blood of our Saviour Jesu Christ. 

Wlienin b alsoy as occasion serveth, answered such places of the book of 


As may seem any thing worthy the answering. 


Ye shaD find here also the true copy of the book written, and in open court 

delivered, by Dr. Stephen Gardiner, not one word added or 

diminished, but faithfully in all points agreeing 

with the original. 

Read with Judgment, and confer with diligence, Inying aside all affection on either party, 

and you shall easily perceire, good reader, how slender and weak the allegationn 

and perauasions of the papists are, wherewith they go about to 

defend their erroneous and (Use doctrine, and 

to impugn the truth. 




And licensed according to the meaning of the late Proclamation. 

[The Answer to Gardyner, when first published, was accom- 
panied by the whole, both of the Defence^ &c. and of Gardyner*8 at- 
tempted Confuiaiion of it. The former, having been already printed 
separately in the second volume, is omitted here, and references 
substituted in the places where its different parts were inserted. 
The latter is given entire. It is distinguished from Cranmer's 
Answer by a smaller type. To secure its accuracy, the press has 
been corrected from the original edition in octavo, which appeared, 
while Gardyner was in the Tower, without any name of printer or 
place. The authorities used for the Answer are, the first edition, 
'* imprinted at London by Reynolde Wolfe,'* i55i> folio, and the 
second, also in folio, which issued from the press of John Daye in 
1580, under the superintendence, as it has been supposed, of 
Bishop Parkhurst. The last of these has supplied many marginal 
notes, together with the useful numerals which point to the cor- 
responding passages in the attack and defence. It is represented 
in its title-page to have been ** revised and corrected by the Arch- 
'* byshop at Oxford, before his Martyrdome $ Wherein hee hath 
" beautified Gardiner's doynges, with asmuch diligence as might 
be, by applying Notes in the Maigent, and markes to the Doc- 
tours saying : which before wanted in the first Impression.**] 

[ Thejbllowing lines were prefixed to the edition of 



Aocipe prseclarum, lector studiose, libellum, 

Quern tibi Cranmerus scripserat ante rogos. 
Hie docta sanctam tractat ratione synaxin^ 

Insistens, patres quas docuere, viis. 
Hie, Gardnere, tuas phaleratas detegit artes ; 

Detrahit et larvam, saeve tyranne, tuam. 
Atque tuo ipsius jugulum transverberat ense, 

Ut jaceas yeluti sensdbus absque fera. 
Denique rixosis hie obstruit ora papistis, 

Rixandi posset si tamen esse modus. 
Solvitur iu cineres corpus^ mens scandit ad astra, 

Fama superstes exit tempus in omne memor. 


I THINK it good, gentle reader, here in the beginning to 
admonish thee of certain words and kinds of speeches, which 
I do use sometime in this mine Answer to the late Bishop of 
Wyndiesta-''s book, lest in mistaking, thou do as it were 
stumble at them. 

First this word, ^^ sacrament,^ I do sometimes use (as it is Sacrament. 
many times taken among writers and holy doctors) for the 
sacramental bread, water, or wine ; as when they say, that 
^' sacramentum eat sacrte ret aignum^ ^^ a sacrament is the 
^* 83gn of an holy thing.*" But where I use to speak sometimes, 
as the old authors do, that Christ is in the sacraments, I mean 
the same as they did understand the matter, that is to say, 
not of Chrisf s carnal presence in the outward sacrament ; 
but sometimes of his sacramental presence : and sometime by 
this word, *^ sacrament,^ I mean the whole ministration and re- 
ceiving of the sacraments, either of Baptism, or of the Lord^s 
Supper, and so the old writers many times do say, that 
Christ and the Holy Ghost be present in the sacraments, 
not meaning by that manner of speech, that Christ and the 
Holy Ghost be present in the water, bread, or wine, (which 
be only the outward visible sacraments,) but that in the due 
ministration of the sacraments according to Chrisfs ordi- 
nance and institution, Christ and his holy Spirit be truly 
and in deed present by their mighty and sanctifying power, 
virtue, and grace, in all them that worthily receive the same. 

Moreover when I say and repeat many times in my book. 


Christ's that the body of Christ is present in them that worthily re- 

preaeoce in 

the godly ceivc the sacrament, lest any man should mistake my words, 
and think that I mean, that although Christ be not cor- 
porally in the outward visible signs, yet he is corporally in 
the persons that duly receive them, this is to advertise the 
reader, that I mean no such thing, but my meaning is, that 
the force, the grace, the virtue, and benefit of Chrisf s body 
that was crucified for us and of his blood that was shed for 
us, be really and effectually present with all them that duly 
receive the sacraments, but all this I understand of his 
spiritual presence, of the which he saith, / xoitt be'with you 
Matt until the worlSs end. And, Wheresoever two or three be 
MK\x.\Y\\\.gf^thered together in my namey there am I in the midst of 
John yi. them. And, He that eateth myjlesh and drinketh my bloody 
dweUeth in me^ and I in him. Nor no more is truly he 
corporally or really present in the due ministration of the 
Lord^s Supper, than he is in the due ministration of Bap- 
tism ; that is to say, in both spiritually by grace. And 
wheresoever in the Scripture it is said, that Christ, God, or 
the Holy Ghost is in any man, the same is understand spi- 
ritually by grace*. 
The nam- The third thing to admonish the reader of is this, that 

log of the 

late Bishop when I name Doctor Stephen Gardyner, Bishop of Wyn- 

chester. Chester, I mean not that he is so now, but forasmuch as he 

was Bishop of Wynchester at the time when he wrote his 

book against me, therefore I answer his book as written by 

the Bishop of Wynchester, which else needed greatly none 

answer for any great learning or substance of matter that is 

in it. 

The real The last admonition to the reader is this, where the said 

presence of 

■ [•« That is to say- -understand spiritually by grace." This 

clause is taken from the edition of 1580; it does not exist in that of 



late Bishop thinketh, that he hath sufficiently proved tran-of Cbrist 
substantiation^ that is to say, that the substance of bread prove no 
and wine cannot be in the sacrament, if the body and blood stantiation 
of Christ were there, because two bodies cannot be together °^J ^ ^^ 
in one place ; although the truth be, that in the sacrament 
of Chrisf s body, there is corporally but the substance of 
bread only, and in the sacrament of the blood, the sub- 
stance of wine only ; yet how far he is deceived, and doth 
vary from the doctrine of other papists, and also from the 
principles of philosophy, (which he taketh for the founda- 
tion of his doctrine in this point,) the reader hereby may 
easily perceive. For if we speak of Code's power^ the papists 
affirm, that by God^s power two bodies may be together in 
one place, and then why may not Chrisf s blood be with the 
wine in the cup, and his flesh in the same place where 
the substance of the bread is ? And if we consider the cause 
wherefore two bodies cannot be together in one place by 
the rules of nature, it shall evidently appear, that the body 
of Christ may rather be in one place with the substance of 
the bread, than with the accidents thereof, and so likewise 
his blood with the wine. For the natural cause wherefore 
two bodies cannot be together in one place, as the philoso- 
phers say, is their accidents, their bigness and thickness, 
and not their substances. And then by the very order of 
nature it repugneth more, that the body of Christ should be 
present with the accidents of bread, and his blood with the 
accidents of wine, than with the substances either of bread 
or wine. This shall suffice for the admonition to the reader, 
joining thereto the Preface in my first book, which is this^ : 

b [See vol. ii. p. 287.] 


The title qftlie book of Steven Gardiner^ late Bishop of' 

Winchester : 


The Answer of Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, 6fc. 

Hb&e before the beginDing of your book, you have pre- BOOK 
ferred a goodly tide, but it agreeth with the argument and ^- 
matter thereof as water agreeth with the fire. For your 
book is so far from an explication and assertion of the true 
catholic faith in the matter of the sacrament, that it is but a 

^ [To this title is added in the original edition of the Explication : 
*' Made by Steven Bysiiop of Winchester, and exhibited by his owne 
*' hande for his defence to the Kynge's Majestie*s Commissioners at 
'' Lambeth." Tliis public presentation took place on the 26th of January, 
1551, and is thus described by Foxe. '' The said Bishop .... for part 
** of his proof of his matter justificatorvy did exhibit and leave among 
** the articles of this cause, a certain book written and made by him, 
" as he said, concerning his opinion and true belief of the sacrament of 
** tlie altar, and of the true catholic faitli therein, for confutation, as he 
" affirmed, of my Lord of Canterbury's book, lately set forth upon the 
** said matter, and not provoking, as he said, the said judges presently 
** to dispute thereupon, offered himself to be ready at the will and plea- 
** sure of the judges, at any time and place convenient, and before a 
** due audience, by learning to defend the said book, which book he re- 
** quired to be inserted among the articles of this cause, and a copy 
** thereof to be granted to him.*' Foxe, Acts and MonumentSj p. 799. 
(edit. 1563.)] 



BOOK crafty cavillation and subtle sophistication to obscure the 
^' truth thereof, and to hide the same, that it should not appear. 
And in your whole book, the reader, if he mark it well, shall 
easily perceive how little learning is showed therein, and 
bow few authors you have alleged other than such as I 
brought forth in my book, and made answer unto : but 
there is showed what may be done by fine wit and new de- 
vices, to decdve the reader, and by false interpretations to 
avoid the plain words of Scripture and of the old authors. 

Wherefore inasmuch as I purpose, God willing, in this 
defence of my former book, not only to answer you, but by 
the way also to touch Doctor Smythe, two things I would 
wish in you both; the one is, truth with simplicity; the 
other is, that either of you both had so much learning as you 
think you have, or else that you thought of yourselves no 
more than you have in deed. But to answer both your books 
in few words: the one showeth nothing else, but what 
railing without reason or learning, the other, what froward- 
ness armed with wit and eloquence, be able to do against 
the truth. And Smythe, because he would be vehement, 
and show his heat in the manner of speech, where the matter 
is cold, hath framed in a manner all his sentences through- 
out his whole book by interrogations. But if the reader of 
both your books do no more, but diligently read over my 
book once again, he shall find the same not so slenderly 
made, but that I have foreseen all that could be said to the 
contrary^; and that I have fully answered beforehand all 
that you both have said, or is able to say. 


Forasmuch as amongst other mine allegations for defence of i 
myself ID this matter, moved against me by occasion of niy^ Ser- 

^ [Cranmer might well make this assertion, for most of the authorities 
alleged against him are to be found in his own common-place book still 
preserved in the British Museum, having been extracted by him, as is 
evident from some marginal notes, while he was still a believer in the 
Corporal Presence. Royal MSS. 7 B. xi. xii.] 

^ [This Sermon was preached on the 29th of June, 1548, by command 
of the Council. The chief grounds of complaint against it were, that Uai^ 


mon made before the King*8 roost excellent Majesty, toucliing BOOK 
partly the catholic faith of the most precious sacrament of the ^' 

t altar» which I see now impugned, by a book set forth under the 
name of my lord of Canterbury*s grace : I have thought expedient 
for the better opening of the matter, and considering I am by 
name^ touched in the said book, the rather to utter partly that 1 

5 have to say by confutation of that book ; wherein I think neverthe- 
less not requisite to direct any speech by special name to the per- 
son of him that is entitled author, because it may possibly be that 
his name is abused, w^herewith to set forth the matter, being him- 1 would as 
self of such dignity and authority in the commonwealth, as for " ul*j 
that respect should be inviolable. For which consideration, I my due to 
shall in my speech of such reproof as the untruth of the matter JJ,d1JiIJ^^'^ 
necessarily requireth, omitting the special title of the author of also. 
the book, speak only of the author in general, being a thing to ■-'^ ^'^ 
nie greatly to be marvelled at, that such matter should now be 
published out of my lord of Canterbury's pen -, but because he is a 
man, I will not wonder, and because he is such a man, I will re- 
verently use him, and forbearing further to name him, talk only of 
the author by that general name. 

I The first entry of your book showeth to them that be ilie craft 
wise, what they may look for in the rest of the same, except tJ,?^i"Jie *" 
the beginning vary from all that followeth. Now the be- iK^noing. 
ginning is framed with such sleight and subtlety, that it may 
deceive the reader notably in two things. The one, that he 
should think you were called into judgment before the King'^s 
Majesty^sCommissioners^atljamhith for your catholic faith 

dyner had failed in his promise of declaring his concurrence in certain 
changes of religioo, ana in particular^ that he had not asserted the au- 
thority of the King while under age. He was, however, charged iilso 
with having ** declared divers judgments and opinions on the sacrament 
'* of the altar, to the manifest contempt of his Highnesses inhibition." See 
the articles and other proceedings against him in Foxe, vol. ii. p. 726, 
and Burnet, Ref. vol. li. p. 340. vol. lii. p. 379. Jt must be recollected 
tliat the later editions ot Foxe contain an abridgment only of Gardy- 
tier's trial. For a full account of it, the first edition of 1563 must be 
consulted. The Sermon, as collected by Udall, may be there seen at 
length, p. 771.] 
' rSee Defence, &c. book. iii. chup. 8. vol. ii. p. 376.] 
* [See the definitive sentence of these Commissioners in Foxe, vol. ii. 
p. 738. It was passed on tlie 18th of April, 1551, Bum. Ref, vol. ii. p. 



BOOK in the sacrament : the other, that you made your book for 
*• your defence therein ; which be both utterly untrue. For 
your book was made or ever ye were called before the said 
Commissioners, and after you were called, then you altered 
only two lines in the beginning of your book, and made 
that beginning which it hath now. This am I able to prove, 
as well otherwise, as by a book which I have of your own 
handwriting, wherein appeareth plainly the alteration of 
the beginning. 

And as concerning the cause wherefore ye were called be- 
fore the Commissioners, whereas by your own importune suit 
and procurement, and as it were enforcing the matter, you 
were called to justice for your manifest contempt and con- 
tinual disobedience from time to time, or rather rebellion 
against the King'^s Majesty, and were justly deprived of your 
estate for the same, you would turn it now to a matter of 
the sacrament, that the world should think your trouble 
rose for your faith in the sacrament, which was no matter 
nor occasion thereof, nor no such matter was objected 
against you, wherefore you need to make any such defence. 
And where you would make that matter the occasion of 
your worthy deprivation and punishment, (which was no 
cause thereof,) and cloak your wilful obstinacy and disobe- 
dience, (which was the only cause thereof,) all men of judg- 
ment may well perceive, that you could mean no goodness 
thereby, neither to the King^s Majesty, nor to his realm. 

But as touching the matter now in controversy, I impugn * 
not the true catholic faith which was taught by Christ and 
his Apostles, as you say I do, but I impugn the false pa- 
pistical faith invented, devised, and imagined by Antichrist 
and his ministers. 

And as for further forbearing of my name, and talking o{i 
the author in general, after that you have named me once, 
and your whole book is directed against my book openly 
set out in my name, all men may judge that your doing 
herein is not for reverence to be used unto me, but that by 
suppressing of my name you may the more unreverently 
and unseemly use your scoffing, taunting, railing, and de- 


faming of the author in general, and yet shall every man BOOK 
understand, that your speech is directed to me in especial, ^- 
as well as if you had appointed me with your finger. And 
your reverent using of yourself before the King's Highness' 
Commissioners of late, doth plainly declare what reverent 
respect you have to them that be in dignity and authority 
in the commonwealth. 


This author denieth the real presence of Christ's most precious The sum of 
body and blood in the sacrament. ^^ \iooV. 

This author denieth transubstantiatioD. 

This author denieth evil men to eat and drink the body and 
blood of Christ in the sacrament. 

These three denials only impugn and tend to destroy that faith 
which this author termeth the popish to err in, calling now all 
popish that believe either of these three articles by him denied, 
the truth whereof shall hereafter be opened. 
I Now because faith affirmeth some certainty : if we ask this Becnase the 
author, what is his faith, which he calleth true and catholic, it is author pre- 
only this, as we may learn by his book, that in our Liord's Supper defence of 
be consecrate bread and wine, and delivered as tokens only to **».® catholic 
signify Christ's body and blood j he calleth them holy tokens, but reason to 
yet noteth that the bread and wine be never the holier ; he saith \^!^^ ^*»"^ 

it is. 

3 nevertheless they be not bare tokens, and yet concludeth Christ fisSc] 

not to be spiritually present in them, but only as a thine is pre- '^^ ^^^^\ 
. '^ ,./..-,.,,.,. : r- . of that this 

sent m that which signineth it^ (which is the nature of a bare autlior cal- 

token,) saying in another place, there is nothing to be worshipped, |f{^ ^'^ 

for there is nothing present but in figure, and in a sign : which [1580.] 

whosoever saitli, calleth the thing in deed absent. And yet the Untrue re- 

3 author saith, Christ is in the man that worthily receiveth spi- [i^so.] 

4 ritually present, who eateth of Christ's flesh and his blood reigning 
in heaven, whither the good believing man ascendeth by his faith. 
And as our body is nourished with the bread and wine received in 
the Supper, so the true believing man is fed with the body and 
blood of Christ. And this is the sum of the doctrine of that faith, 
which this author calleth the true catholic faith. 

I I desire the reader to judge my faith not by this short, 





Bread , 
wine, and 
vPRter, be 
not boly, 
but boly 

not bare 

Christ 18 
present in 
his sacra- 

A ratholic 

envious, and untrue collection and report, but by mine own 
bix>k, as it is at length set out in the first part, from the 
eighth unto the sixteenth chapter. 

And as concerning the holiness of bread and wine, (wher&- 
unto I may add the water in baptism,) how can a dumb or 
an insennble and lifeless creature receive into itself any food, 
and feed thereupon ? No more is it possible that a spiritless 
creature should receive any spiritual sanctification or holi- 
ness. And yet do I not utterly deprive the outward sacra- 
ments of the name of holy things, because of the holy use 
whercunto they serve, and not because of any holiness that 
lieth hid in the insensible creature. Which although they 
have no holiness in them, yet they be signs and tokens of 
the marvellous works and holy effects which God worketh 
in us by his omnipotent power. 

And they be no vain nor bare tokens, as you would per- > 
suade, (for a bare token is that which betokeneth only, and 
giveth nothing, as a painted fire which giveth neither light 
nor heat,) but in the due ministration of the sacraments, 
God is present, working with his word and sacraments. 

And although) to speak properly, in the bread and wine 3 
be nothing in deed to be worshipped, yet in them that duly 
receive the sacraments is Christ himself inhabiting, and is 
of all creatures to be worshipped. 

And therefore you gather of my sayings unjustly, that 4 
Christ is in deed absent, for I say, according to God^s words 
and the doctrine of the old writers, that Christ is present in 
his sacraments, as they teach also that he is present in his 
word, when he worketh mightily by the same in the hearts 
of the hearers. By which manner of speech it is not meant 
that Christ is corporally present in the voice or sound of 
the speaker, which sound perisheth as soon as the words be 
spoken, but this speech meaneth, that he worketh with his 
word, using the voice of the speaker as his instrument to 
work by, as he useth also his sacraments, whereby he work- 
eth, and therefore is said to be present in them. 

Now a catholic faith is ati universal fiiith taught and preached ■ 


through all, and so received and believed agreeably and consonant BOOK 
to the Scriptures, testified by such as in all ages have in their 

writings given knowledge thereof, which be the tokens and marks '^*', *f ' tu 

of a true catholic fiiith, whereof no one can be found in the faith hath do 

this author calleth catholic. P®|?* ?^ * 


a First, there is no Scripture that in letter maintaineth the doc- faith. 

3 trine of this author s book. For Christ saith not that the bread Uutrne 

, , report. 

doth only signify his body absent, nor St. Paul saith not so in any Scripture 

place, ne any other canonical Scripture declareth Christ's words so. ^° ^^^^ ^* 

As for the sense and understanding of Christ's words, there hath this au- 

not been in any age any one approved and known learned roan, |f*^^^^* 

that hath so declared and expounded Christ's words in his Supper, 

that the bread did only signify Christ's body, and the wine his 

blood, as things absent. 


I The first part of your description of a catholic faith is Mydoctrine 
crafty and full of subtlety, for what you mean by " all,'' you "yTOurown 
do not express. The second part is very true, and agreeth dcacriptioD. 
fully with my doctrine in every thing, as well in the matter 
of transubstantiation, of the presence of Christ in the sacra- 
ment, and of the eating and drinking of him, as in the sa- 
crifice propitiatory. For as I have taught in these four 
matters of controversy, so learned I the same of the holy 
Scripture, so is it testified by all old writers and learned 
men of all ages, so was it universally taught and preached, 
received and believed, until the see of Rome, the chief ad- 
versary unto Christ, corrupted all together, and by hypo- 
crisy and simulation in the stead of Christ erected Anti- 
christ, who, being the son of perdition, hath extolled and ad- 
vanced himself, and sitteth in the temple of God as he were 
God himself, loosing and binding at his pleasure in heaven, 
hell, and earth; condemning, absolving, canonizing, and 
damning, as to his judgment he thinketh good. 

But as concerning your doctrine of transubstantiation ; of 
the real, corporal, and natural presence of Christ's body in 
the bread and blood in the wine ; that ill men do eat his 
flesh and drink his blood ; that Christ b many times offered; 

a there is no Scripture that in letter maintaineth any of them, 



BOOK as you require in a catholic faith, but the Scripture in the 
letter doth maintain this my doctrine plainly, that the bread 

I Cor. X. remainetb, Pants quern Jrangtmus^ nonne commtmicatio 
corporis Christi est f Is not the bread which roe break the 
communion qfChrisfs body f And that evil men do not eat 
Chrisfs flesh, nor drink bis blood; for the Scripture saith 

John vi. expressly : He that eateth my fleshy and drinheth my bloody 
dweUeth in me^ and J in him^ which is not true of ill men. 
And for the corporal absence of Christ, what can be more 

John xvi. plainly said in the letter than he said of himself, that he 
forsook the world? besides other Scriptures which I have 
alleged in my third book, the fourth chapter. And the 

licb. vii. Scripture speaketh plainly in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
that Christ was never more offered than once. 

ciinst is But here you take such a large scope, that you flee from 3 

present. ^ ^^® '^"f proper matters that be in controversy unto a new 
scope devised by you, that I should absolutely deny the 
presence of Christ, and say. That the bread doth only sig- 
nify Christ^s body absent, which thing I never said nor 
thought. And as Christ saith not so, nor Paul saith not so, 
even so likewise I say not so, and my book in divers places 
saith clean contrary, that Christ is with us spiritually pre- 
sent, is eaten and drunken of us, and dwelleth within us, 
although corporally he be departed out of this world, and 
is ascended up into heaven. 


And to the intent every notable disagreement from the truth i 
may the more evidently appear, I will here in this place, as I will 
hereafter likewise when the case occurretb, join as it were an 
Aq issue, issue with this author, that is to say, to make a stay with him in 
this point, triable, as they say, by evidence, and soon tried. For 
in this point the Scriptures be already by the author brouglit 
forth, the letter whereof proveth not his faith. And albeit he tra- 
vaileth and bringeth forth the saying of many approved writers, 
yet is there no one of them that writeth in express words the doc- 
trine of that faith which this author calleth the faith catholic. 
And to make the issue plain, and to join it directly, thus I say. 


< No author known and approved, that is to say, Ignatius, Poll- BOOK 
carpe, Justine, Irene, Tertullian» Cyprian, Chrysostome, Hilary, 

Gregory Nazianzene, Basil), Emissen, Ambrose, Cyrill, Hierome, ^® writer 
Augustine, Damascene, Theophilact, none of these hath this doc- testifietli 
trine in plain terms, that the bread only signifieth Christ's body^j*^"^^'^ 
absent 5 nor this sentence, that the bread and wine be never the xbe sum of 
holier after consecration ; nor that Christ's body is none otherwise ^^ issne, 
present in the sacrament, but in a signification : nor this sentence, '- ^ '-' 
that the sacrament is not to be worshipped, because there is 
nothing present but in a sign. And herein what the truth is, 
may soon appear, as it shall by their works never appear to have 
been taught and preached, received and believed universally, and 
therefore can be called no catholic faith, that is to say, allowed Oatward 
in the whole, through and in outward teaching, preached and^^^"°i?* 


In your issues you make me to say what you list, and 
take your issue where you list, and then if twelve false var- 
lets pass with you, what wonder is it ? But I will join with Your doc- 
you this issue, that neither Scripture nor ancient author '""^ |? "°' 
writeth in express words the doctrine of your faith. And your own 
to make the issue plain, and to join directly with you there- ^"'P^**°* 
in, thtis I say : That no ancient and catholic author hath 
your doctrine in plain terms. And because I will not take 
my issue in bye matters, as you do, I will make it in the 
four principal points, wherein we vary, and whereupon my 
book resteth. 

( This therefore shall be mine issue : That as no Scripture, My issue. 
so no ancient author known and approved, hath in plain 
terms your transubstantiation : nor that the body and blood 
of Christ be really, corporally, naturally, and carnally under 
the forms of bread and wine : nor that evil men do eat the 
very body and drink the very blood of Christ : nor that 
Christ is oiFered every day by the priest a sacrifice propitia- 
tory for sin. Wherefore by your own description and rule 
of a catholic faith, your doctrine and teaching in these four 
articles cannot be good and catholic, except you can find it 
in plain terms in the Scripture and old catholic doctors. 


BOOK which when you do, I will hold up my hand at the bar, and 
^« say, Guilty. And if you cannot, then it is reason that you 
do the like, per legem talumis, 


If this author, setting apart the word " catholic," would of his i 

own wit go about to prove, howsoever Scripture hath been un- 

derstanded hitherto, yet it should be understanded in deed as he 

now teachetb, he hath herein divers disadvantages and hinderances 

worthy considerations, which I will particularly note. 

A notable First, the prejudice and sentence, given as it were by his own 2 

matter, a mouth airainst himself, now in the book called the Catechism in 
man to be ° r t. 

coudeiuned his name set forth. 

by his own Secondly, that about seven hundred year ago, one Bertram, if 3 
writingH. ^he book set forth in his name be his, enterprised secretly the 
^5^0.] \\]^Q^ 03 appeareth by the said book, and yet prevailed not. 
confessed to Thirdly, Berengarius being in deed but an archdeacon, about 4 
be of this fiyg hundred years past, after he had openly attempted to set 
[1580.] forth such like doctrine, recanted, and so failed in his purpose. 

Fourthly, Wykclif, not much above an hundred years past, en- 5 
terprised the same, whose teaching God prospered not. 

Fifthly, how Luther in his works handled them that would 6 
have in our time raised up the same doctrine in Germany, it is 
manifest by his and their writings ; whereby appeareth the enter- 
Tbis au- prise that hath had so many overthrows, so many rebuts, so often 

thor's doc- reproofis, to be desperate, and such ^ God hath not prospered and 
trine often . ^ , , *^.. . , .... 

rejected as favoured, to be received at any time openly as his true teaching. 

r^'^fi' 1 Herein whether I say true or no, let the stories try me, and it 7 

is matter worthy to be noted, because Gamaliel's observation 

Acts ▼. written in the Acts of the Apostles is allowed to mark, how they 
prosper and go forward in their doctrine that be authors of any 
new teaching. 


I have not proved in my book my four assertions by mine i 
own wit, but by the collation of holy Scripture, and the 
sayings of the old holy catholic authors. And as for your 
five notes, you might have noted them against yourself, who 
by them have much more disadvantage and hinderanoe than 
I have. 


As concerning the Catechism by me set forth, I have an- BOOK 
swered in my fourth book the eighth chapter, that ignorant 

men, for lack of judgment and exercise in old authors, mis- ^ ^■*®* 
take my said Catechism. [15^0] 

3 And as for Bertrame, he did nothing else but at the re- Bertrame. 
quest of King Charles set out the true doctrine of the holy 
catholic Church from Christ unto his time, concerning the 
sacrament. And I never heard nor read any man that con- 
demned Bertrame before this time, and therefore I can take 
no hinderance, but a great advantage at his hands. For 
all men that hitherto have written of Bertram, have much 
commended him. And seeing that he wrote of the sacra- 
ment at King Charles' request, it is not like that he would 
write against the received doctrine of the Church in those 
days. And if he had, it is without all doubt that some 
learned man, either in his time or sithence, would have 
written against him, or at the least not have commended 
him so much as they have done^ 

^ Berengarius of himself had a godly judgment in this Bereoga- 
matter, but by the tyranny of Nicholas the Second he was""*' 
constrained to make a devilish recantation, as I have de- 
clared in my first book, the seventeenth chapter. 

5 And as for John Wiclef, he was a singular instrument of Wydefe. 
God in his time to set forth the truth of Christy's gospel, but 
Antichrist that sitteth in God's temple, boasting himself as 
God, hath by God^s sufferance prevailed against many holy 
men, and sucked the blood of martyrs these late years. 

6 And as touching Martyn Luther, it seemeth you be sore Lather, 
pressed, that be fain to pray aid of him, whom you have 
hitherto ever detested. The fox is sore hunted that is fain 

to take his burrow, and the wolf that is fain to take the lion^s 
den for a shift, or to run for succour unto a beast which he 
most hateth. And no man condemneth your doctrine of 
transubstantiation, and of the propitiatory sacrifice of the 
mass, more severely and earnestly than doth Martyn 

^ [See a curious accouut of the coDtradictory opinions expressed by 
Roman catholic writers respecting Bertram's book, in the rreface to 
the English translation of it, London, 1686.] 


BOOK But it appeareth by your conclusion, that you have 
waded so far in rhetoric, that you have forgotten your 

The P«H>»«to| -^^ Yov this is your arrament : Bertram taufi^ht this doc- 
have been p . . 
the cAoae trine and prevailed not ; Berengarius attempted the same, 

cfUb^ and failed in his purpose; Wiclefe enterprised the same, 
doctrine whose teaching God prospered not ; therefore God hath not 
brndered, prospered and favoured it to be received at any time openly 
*°**i!*^ as his true teaching. I will make the like reason. The pro- 
good BQc- phet Osee taught in Samaria to the ten tribes the true doc- 
cess these ^j^Qg ^f Qq^^ ^o bring them from their abominable super- 
stitions and idolatry : Joel, Amos, and Micheas, attempted 
the same, whose doctrine prevailed not ; God prospered not 
their teaching among those people, but they were condemned 
with their doctrine; therefore Gtxl hath not prospered and 
favoured it to be received at any time openly as his true 

If you will answer, as you must needs do, that the cause 
why that among those people the true teaching prevuled 
not, was by reason of the abundant superstition and idolatry 
that blinded their eyes, you have fully answered your own 
argument, and have plainly declared the cause, why the 
true doctrine in this matter hath not prevailed these five 
hundred years ; the Church of Rome, which all that time 
hath borne the chief swing, being overflown and drowned in 
all kind of superstition and idolatry, and therefore might 
not abide to hear of the truth. And the true doctrine of 
the sacrament, which I have set out plainly in my book, 
was never condemned by no Council, nor your false papisti- 
cal doctrine allowed, until the Devil caused Antichrist bis 
son and heir Pope Nicholas the Second, with, his monks and 
friars, to condemn the truth, and confirm these your he- 

And where of GamaliePs words you make an argument of 7 
prosperous success in this matter, the Scripture testifieth how 
Antichrist shall prosper and prevail against saints no short 
while, and persecute the truth. And yet the counsel of 
Gamaliel was very discreet and wise. For he perceived 
that God went about the reformation of religion, grown in 


those days to idolatry, hypocrisy, and superstition, through BOOK 
traditions of Pharisees, and therefore he moved the rest ^^ 
the Council to beware, that they did not rashly and unad- 
visedly condemn that doctrine and religion which was ap- 
proved by God, lest in so doing they should not only resist 
the Apostles, but God himself. Which counsel if you had 
marked and followed, you would not have done so unsoberly 
in many things as you have done. 

And as for the prosperity of them that have professed 
Christ and his true doctrine, they prospered with the papists, 
as St. John Baptist prospered with Herode, and our Saviour 
Christ with Pylate, Annas, and Cayphas. Now which of 
these prospered best say you ? Was the doctrine of Christ 
and St. John any whit the worse, because the cruel tyrants 
and Jews put them to death for the same ? 


Bttt all this set apart, and putting aside all testimonies of the These 

old Church, and resorting only to the letter of the Scripture, there ^^^; 

to search out an understanding : and in doing thereof, to forget body, agree 

what hath been tautfht hitherto : how shall this author establish '° ^^°f^ 

° with the 

upon Scripture that he would have believed } What other text is rest of the 

1 there in Scripture that encountereth with these words of Scrip- Scripture. 
ture. This is my body, whereby to alter the signification of them ? report 
There is no Scripture saith, Christ did not give his body, but thejf'*'j'*""^*'°'' 

2 figure of his body ; nor the giving of Christ's body in his supper, words of 
verily and really so understanded, doth not necessarily impugn Scripture 
and contrary any other speech or doing of Christ expressed in ground of 

3 Scripture. For the great power and omnipotency of God ex- ^^ ^*'**- 
cludeth that repugnance which man's reason would deem of 
Christ's departing firom this world, and placing his humanity in 

the glory of his Father. 

1 The Scripture is plain, and you confess also, that it was This is my 
bread that Christ spake of, when he said. This is my body, ^er" "^ 
And what need we any other Scripture to encounter with speech. 
these words, seeing that all men know that bread is not 
Christ^s body, the one having sense and reason, the other 


BOOK none at all ? Wherefore in that speech must needs be sought 
another sense and meaning than the words of themselves do 

^ve^ which is, as all old writers do teach, and the circum> 
stances of the text declare, that the bread is a figure and sa^- 
crament of Christ^s body. And yet as he giveth the bread 
to be eaten with our mouths, so giveth he his very body to 
be eaten with our faith. And therefore I say, that Christ a 
giveth himself truly to be eaten, chawed, and digested, but 
all is spiritually with faith, not with mouth. And yet you 
would bear me in hand, that I say that thing which I say 
not : that is to say. That Christ did not give his body, but 
the figure of his body. And because you be not able to 
confute that I say, you would make me to say that you 
can confute. 
God*8 om- As for the great power and omnipotency of God, it is no 3 
Ptud^x? place here to dispute what God can do, but what he doth. 
Rom. ix. I know that he can do what he will both in heaven and in 
earth, and no man is able to reast his will. But the ques- 
tion here is of his will, not of his power. And yet if you 
can join together these two, that one nature singular shall 
be here and not here both at one time, and that it shall be 
gone hence when it is here, you have some strong cement, 
and be a cunning geometrician : but yet you shall never be 
good logician, that would set together two contradictories. 
For thatj the schoolmen say, God cannot do. 


An answer If this author, without force of necessity, would induce it by i 
to the ^y^^ i^i^Q speeches, as when Christ said : I am the door, I am the 
speeches vine, he is Helias, and such other, and because it is a figurative 
in app^- speech in them, it may be so here, which maketh no kind of proof 
faith of this that it is so here : but yet if by way of reasoning I would yield to 
K^^'^K^ him therein, and call it a figurative speech, as be doth ; what a 
liere a Other point of fiiith is there then in the matter, but to believe the 
l^^l y^ story, that Christ did institute such a Supper, wherein he gave 
per hath no bread and wine for a token of his body and blood, which is now 
*" h'^^th''" after this understanding no secret mystery at all, or any ordinance 
author's un. above reason? For commonly men use to ordain in sensible things 
?*"•*?**" remembrances of themselves when they die, or depart the country. 


So aa in the ordinance of this Supper, after this understanding, BOOK 
Christ showed not his oronipotency, but only benevolence, that he ! 

loved us, and would be remembered of us. For Christ did not P>^^i^ 

made to a 

T, Whosoever eateth this token eateth my body, or eateth my token in 
flesh, or shall have any profit of it in special, but. Do this in re- ^^^PP^^ 
membrance of me. sixth 

Canterbury. f^^g^^' 

I make no such vain inductions as you imagine me to do, 
but such as be established by Scripture and the consent of 
all the old writers. And yet both you and Smyth use 
such fond inductions for your proof of transubstantiation, 
when you say, God can do this thing, and he can make that 
thing : whereof you would conclude, that he doth clearly 
take away the substance of bread and wine, and putteth his 
flesh and blood in their places : and that Christ maketh his 
body to be corporally in many places at one time ; of which 
doctrines you have not one jot in all the whole Scripture. 

And as concerning your argument made upon the history lojury to 
of the institution of Christ'^s Supper, like fond reasoning P^*"* 
might ungodly men make of the sacrament of baptism, and 
so sooff out both these high mysteries of Christ. For when 
Christ said these words after his resurrection, Go into the ^^^ ^l^ 
whole worlds and preach unto all people^ baptizing them in 
the name of the Father^ the Son^ and the Holy Ghost: here 
might wicked blasphemers say, What point of faith is in 
these words, but to believe the story, that Christ did insti- 
tute such a sacrament, wherein he commanded to give water 
for a token .^ which is now, after this understanding, no 
secret mystery at all, or any ordinance above reason : so as 
in the ordinance of this sacrament after this understanding, 
Christ showed not his omnipotency ; for he said not then, 
Whosoever receiveth this token of water shall receive re- 
mission of sin, or the Holy Ghost, or shall have any profit 
of in it especial, but, Do this. 


And albdt this author would not have them bare tokens, yet Tokens be 
and they be only tokens, they have no warrant signed by Scrip- 1,^^)|^^ 


BOOK lure for any apparel at all. For the sixth of John speaketh not 
of any promise made to the eating of a token of Christ's flesh. 

thcybegar-5ut ^ ^y^^ eatine of Christ's very flesh, whereof the bread, as this 

UlSuPQ With 

gay words author ivould have if, is but a figure in Christ's words, when he 
without gaid^ Thig is my body. And if it be but a figure in Christ's words, 
UDtnic it is but a figure in St. Paul's words, when he said : The bread 
^^J\ which we break, is it not the communication of Christ* s body? 
that is to say, a figure of the communication of Christ's body, if 
this author's doctrine be true, and not the communication in deed. 
Every spc- Wherefore if the very body of Christ be not in the Supper de- 2 
^^^^ t*h "iS^ Ji*'cre<i i" deed, the eating there hath no special promise, but only 
promise commandment to do it in remembrance. After which doctrine 
and^hau' ^^y should it be noted absolutely for a sacrament and special 
a secret hid- mystery, that hath nothing hidden in it, but a plain open ordinance 
r ^k8o 1 ^^ * token for a remembrance : to the eating of which token is an- 
nexed no promise expressly, ue any holiness to be accounted to 
be in the bread or wine, as this author teacheth, but to be called 
holy, because they be deputed to an holy use. If I ask the use, 
he declareth, to signify. If I should ask, What to signify ? there 
must be a sort of good words framed without Scripture. For 3 
Scripture expresseth no matter of signification of special efiect. 

Bread isDot I^ I granted for your pleasure that the bare bread, having i 
b^^^tok"^ no further respect, were but only a bare figure of Chrisfs 
body, or a bare token, (because that term liketh you better, 
as it may be thought for this consideration, that men should 
think that I take the bread in the holy mystery to be but 
as It were a token of * I recommend me unto you,^) but if I 
grant, I say, that the bare bread is but a bare token of 
Christ's body, what have you gained thereby ? Is therefore 
the whole use of the bread in the whole action and ministra- 
tion of the Lord^s holy Supper but a naked or nude and 
bare token ? Is not one loaf being broken and distributed 
among faithful people in the Lord'^s Supper, taken and eaten 
of them, a token that the body of Christ was broken and 
crucified for them ? and is to them spiritually and effectually 
given, and of them spiritually and fruitfully taken and eaten, 
to their spiritual and heavenly comfort, sustentation, and 
nourishment of their souls, as the bread is of their bodies ? 


And what would you require more? Can there be any BOOK 
greater comfort to a Christian man than this? Is there no- ^' 
thing else but bare tokens ? 

But yet importune adversaries, and such as be wilful and 
obstinate, will never be satisfied, but quarrel further, saying, 
What of all this? Here be a great many of gay words 
framed together, but to what purpose ? For all be but signs 
and tokens as concerning the bread. But how can he be 
taken for a good Christian man, that thinketh that Christ 
did ordain his sacramental signs and tokens in vain, without 
effectual grace and operation ? For so might we as well say, 
that the water in baptism is a bare token, and hath no war- 
rant signed by Scripture for any apparel at all: for the 
Scripture speaketh not of any promise made to the receiving 
of a token or figure only. And so may be concluded after 
your manner of reasoning, that in baptism is no spiritual 
operation in deed, because that washing in water, in itself, 
is but a token. 

But to express the true effect of the sacraments : as the 
washing outwardly in water is not a vain token, but teach- 
eth such a washing as God worketh inwardly in them that 
duly receive the same : so likewise is not the bread a vain 
token, but showeth and preacheth to the godly receiver, 
what God worketh in him by his almighty power secretly 
and invisibly. And therefore as the bread is outwardly 
eaten in deed in the Lord^s Supper, so is the very body of 
Christ inwardly by faith eaten in deed of all them that come 
thereto in such sort as they ought to do, which eating nou- 
risheth them unto everlasting life, 
a And this eating hath a warrant signed by Christ himself A warrant 
in the sixth of John, where Christ saith. He that eateth my John yi. 
Jlesh and drinketk my bloody hath Ufe everlastifig. But 
they that to the outward eating of the bread, join not thereto 
an inward eating of Christ by faith, they have no warrant 
by Scripture at all, but the bread and wine to them be vain, 
nude, and bare tokens. 
3 And where you say that Scripture expresseth no matter 
of signification of special effect in the sacraments of bread 



BOOK and wine, if your eyes were not blinded with popish errors, 
frowardness and self love, ye might see, in the 22nd of Luke, 

Luke XXII. ^here Christ himself expresseth a matter of signification, 
sa}ring : Hoc JhcUe in met commemorationem. Do this in 

I Cor. xi. remembrance of me. And St. Paul likewise, 1 Cor. xi. hath 
the very same thing, which is a plain and direct answer to 
that same your last question, whereupon you triumph at 
your pleasure, as though the victory were all yours. For 
ye say, when this question is demanded of me. What to sig- 
nify, here must be a sort of good words framed without 
Scripture. But here St. Paul answereth your question in 

1 Cor. xi. express, words, that it is the Lord^s death, that shall be sig- 
nified, represented, and preached in these holy mysteries 
until his coming again. And this remembrance, represen- 
tation, and preaching of Christ^s death, cannot be without 
special efiect, except you will say, that Christ worketh not 
efiectually with his word and sacraments. And St. Paul ex- 

1 Cor. X. presseth the eiFect, when he saith : The bread which we 
breaky is tJie communion of Chrisfs body. But by this 
place and such like in your book, ye disclose yourself to all 
men of judgment, either how wilful in your opinion, or 
how slender in knowledge of the Scriptures you be. 


A Dew And therefore like as the teaching is new, to say it is an only 

teaching of figure, or only signifieth : so the matter of signification must be 
How can a newly devised, and new wine have new bottles, and be throughly 
'"lui* new, after fifteen hundred and fifty years, in the very year of ju- 
tholic, that hilee, as they were wont to call it, to be newly erected and builded 

beginneth in Englishmen's hearts, 
to be pnb- ^ 

ii8hednow? Canterbury. 

It seemeth that you be very desirous to abuse the people^s 
ears with this term, " new,^ and with the year of jubilee, as 
though the true doctrine of the sacrament, by me taught, 
should be but a new doctrine, and yours old, as the Jews 

MariL i. slandered the doctrine of Christ by the name of newness, or 
else that in this year of jubilee you would put the people 
in remembrance of the full remission of sin, which they were 


wont to have at Rome this year, that they might long to re- BOOK 
turn to Rome for pardons again, as the children of Israel ^' 
longed to return to Egypt for the flesh that they were wont 
to have there. 

But all men of learning and judgment know well enough, 
that this your doctrine is no elder than the Bishop of Rome^s 
usurped supremacy, which though it be of good age by 
number of years, yet is it new to Christ and his word. If 
there were such darkness in the world now, as hath been in 
that world which you note for old, the people might drink 
new wine of the whore of Babylon^s cup, until they were as 
drunk with hypocrisy and superstition, as they might well 
stand upon their legs, and no man once say, black is their 
eye. But now, thanks be to God, the light of his word so 
shineth in the world, that your drunkenness in thb year of 
jubilee is espied, so that you cannot erect and build your 
popish kingdom any longer in Englishmen's hearts, without 
your own scorn, shame, and confusion. The old popish 
bottles must needs brast, when the new wine of God's holy 
word is poured into them. 


Which new teaching, whether it proceedeth from the spirit of Tokens 
truth or no, shall more plainly appear by such matter as this**®^*^^^ 
author uttereth, wherewith to impugn the true faith taught from falsc- 
hitherto. For among many other proofs, whereby truth after p^' . 
much travail in contention, at the last prevaileth, and hath vic- 
tory, there is none more notable, than when the very adversaries 
of truth, who pretend nevertheless to be truth*s friends, do by 
some evident untruth bewray themselves. According whereuuto, 
when the two women contended before king Salomon for the 
child yet alive, Salomon discerned the true natural mother from 
the other, by their speeches and sayings. Which in the very 
true mother, were ever conformable unto nature, and in the other, 
at the last evidently against nature. The very true mother spake 
always like herself, and never disagreed from the truth of nature, 
I but rather than the child should be killed, as Salomon threatened 
when he called for a sword, required rather it to be given whole 
alive to the other woman. The other woman, that was not the 

E 2 


BOOK true mother, cared more for victory than for the child, and there- 
fore spake that was in nature an evidence that she lied calling 

A letton of herself mother, and sayine. Let it be divided, which no true natural 
judgment mother could say of her own child. Whereupon proceeded Sa- 
[15^0 lomon*s most wise judgment, which hath this lesson in it, ever 

where contention is, on that part to be the truth, where all say- 
Tratboeed-ings and doings appear uniformly consonant to the tnith pre- 
of lies. tended, and on what side a notable lie appeareth, the rest may 
[1580.] be judged to be after the same sort. For truth needeth no aid of 

lies, craft, or sleight, wherewith to be supported and maintained. 

So as in the entreating of the truth of this high and ineffable 

mystery of the sacrament, on what part thou, reader, seest craft. 

Troth \ov' sleight, shift, obliquity, or in any one point an open manifest lie, 

plicity and ^^^^ ^^^^ mayest consider, whatsoever pretence be made of truth, 

plainness, yet the victory of truth not to be there intended, which loveth ^ 

"* simplicity, plainness, direct speech, without admixtion of shift or 



TheChorch If either division or confusion may try the true motber^i 
not u^ true ^'^^ wicked Church of Rome, not in speech only^ but in all 
mother of other practices, hath long gone about to oppress, confound, 

the catholic ,,... , ' j r 1 i» • v -r..- l • i_ 

faith. and divide the true and lively faith of Chnst, snowing her- 
self not to be the true mother, but a most cruel stepmother, 
dividing, confounding, and counterfeiting all things at her 
pleasure, not contrary to nature only, but chiefly against the 
plain words of Scripture. 
Absorda et For here in this one matter of controversy between you, 
^580 1 Smyth, and me, you divide against nature the accidents of 
bread and wine from their substances^ and the substance of 
Christ from his accidents, and contrary to the Scripture you 
divide our eternal life, attributing unto the sacrifice of Christ 
upon the cross, only the beginning thereof, and the con- 
tinuance thereof you ascribe unto the sacrifice of popish 
priests. And in the sacraments you separate Christ'*s body 
from his spirit, affirming that in baptism we receive but his 
spirit, and in the communion but his flesh; and that Chrisfs 
spirit reneweth our life, but increaseth it not, and that his 
flesh increaseth our life, but giveth it not. And against all 
nature, reason, and truth, you confound the substance of 


bread and urine, with the substance of Christ's body and BOOR 
blood, in such wise as you make but one nature and person ' 
of them all. And against Scripture and all conformity of 
nature, you confound and jumble so together the natural 
members of Christ's body in the sacrament, that you leave 
no distinction, proportion, nor fashion of man's body at all. 
And can your Church be taken for the true natural mo- 
ther of the true doctrine of Christ, that thus unnaturally 
speaketh, divideth, and confoundeth Christ's body ? 

If Salomon were alive, he would surely give judgment. The speak- 
that Christ should be taken from that woman that speaketh IJJe^mo-^ 
so unnaturally and so unlike his mother, and be given to ther. 
the true Church of the faithful, that never digressed from 
the truth of God's word, nor from the true speech of Christ's 
natural body, but speak according to the same, that Christ's 
body, although it be inseparably annexed unto his God- 
head, yet it hath all the natural conditions and properties of 
a very man's body, occupying one place, and being of a 
certain height and measure, having all members distinct 
and set in good order and proportion. And yet the same 
body joined unto his Divinity, is not only the beginning, 
but also the continuance and consummation of our eternal 
and celestial life. By him we be regenerated, by him we be 
fed and nourished from time to time, as he hath taught us 
most certainly to believe by his holy words and sacraments, 
which remain in their former substance and nature, as Christ 
doth in his, without mixtion or confusion. This is the true 
and natural speaking in this matter, like a true natural 
mother, and like a true and right believing Christian man. 

Mary of that doctrine which you teach, I cannot deny Rome is 
but the Church of Rome is the mother thereof, which in ^f^''^'' 
Scripture is called Babylon, because of commixtion or con- pistical 
fuaon. Which in all her doings and teachings so doth mix ^* 
and confound error with truth, superstition with religion, 
godliness with hypocrisy, Scripture with traditions, that she 
showeth herself alway uniform and consonant to confound 
all the doctrine of Christ, yea Christ himself, showing her- 
self to be Christ's stepmother, and the true natural mother 
of Antichrist. 


BOOK And for the conclusion of your matter here, I doubt not 
hilt- the indifferent reader shall easily perceive what spirit 
moved you to write your book. For seeing that your book % 
is so full of crafts, sleights, shifts, obliquities, and manifest 
untruths, it may be easily judged, that whatsoever pretence 
be made of truth, yet nothing is less intended, than that 
truth should either have victory, or appear and be seen at 


The Dame And that thou, reader, mightest by these marks judge of that is < 

of the au- ^^^^ intreated bv the author airainst the most blessed sacrament, 
thor great, ' . . . . 

wherewith I shall note certain evident and manifest untruths which this 

to pat men author is not afraid to utter, (a matter wonderful, considering his 
[1580] ' dignity, if be that is named be the author in deed,) which should 
be a great stay of contradiction, if any thing were to be regarded 
against the truth. 
An impu- First 1 will note unto the reader, how this author termeth the 2 
fr 'th""* ^^^^ ^^ ^^^ '^ ^^^ substantial presence of Christ's body and 
[1580] blood in the sacrament, to be the faith of the papists : which 
saying, what foundation it hath, thou niayest consider of that fol- 

Luther, that professed openly to abhor all that might be noted 3 
papish, defended stoutly the presence of Christ's body in the sa- 
crament, and to be present really and substantially, even with the 
same words and terms. 

Bucer, that is here in England, in a solemn work that he writeth 
upon the Gospels, professeth the same faith of the real and sub- 
stantial presence of Christ's body in the sacrament, which he 
affirmeth to have been believed of all the Church of Christ from 
the beginning hitherto. 
Tbe faith of Justus Jonas hath translate a Catechism out of Dutch into 
roentTn Vhe ^^^* taught in the city of Noremberge in Germany, where Ho- 
Catechism siander is chief preacher : in which Catechism, they be accounted 
this au^*^ for no true Christian men that deny the presence of Christ's body 
thor's doc in the sacrament. The words " really*' and ** substantially" be not 
nsSoT^ expressed, as they be in Bucer, but the word " truly" is there : and 
as Bucer saiths, that is substantially. Which Catechism was 

t [Bucer must be allowed to explain his own expressions. The fol- 
lowing extracts are from a short statement of his opinions on the £u- 
cliarist, written in 1550. 

38. Si negemus Christum percipi in Encharistiu realiter et substan- 



translate into English in this authors name about two years BOOK 
past. I- 

Philip Melancton, no papist nor priest, writeth a very wise 
Epistle^ in this matter to CEcoIampadius, and signifying soberly 
his belief of the presence of Christ's very body in the sacrament : 
and to prove the same to have been the faith of the old Church 
from the beginning, all^th the sayings of Irene, Cyprian, Chry- 
sostome, Hilary, Cyril, Ambrose, andTheophylacte; which authors 
he esteemeth both worthy credit, and to affirm the presence of 
Christ's body in the sacrament plainly without ambiguity. He 
answereth to certain places of St. Augustine, and saith all CEco- 
Iampadius' enterprise to depend upon conjectures and arguments 
api^ausible to idle wits, with much more wise matter, as that 
Epistle doth purport, which iff set out in a book of a good volume 
among the other Epistles of CEcoIampadius, so as no man may 
suspect any thing counterfeit in the matter. 

One Hippinus, or CEpinus, of Hamborough, greatly esteemed 
among the Lutherans, hath written a book^ to the King's Majesty 
that now is, published abroad in print, wherein much inveighing 

^* ttaliter, viderour coDtraria liarum vocum affirmare^ id est, percipi eum 
^ ficte et accidentaliter : optarim has voces ia totum repudiari, nee ad- 
^ mitti eos, sive negando sive affirmando. 

** 39. Si ouando autero res ferat, ut propter tuendum Christi verita- 
** tem apud nlios Dei contra adversarios, voces istte in disputationem in- 
** gerantor, equidem definirem has voces : et si quis veliet per ' adesse 
" Dominuin realiter et substantialiter,' intelligere eum percipi fide re- 
^ ipsa et substantiam ejus, darem. Sin aliquid hujus saecuh veliet his 
** vocibus admiscere, negarem. Keiiquit enim Dommus mundum huuc. 

** 40. Voces * carnaliter' et ' naturaliter,' quooiam perceptionem sea- 
'' suum innuunt, nunquaib admiserim." Buceri Scripia AnglicOf p. 

A translation of this tract is printed by Strype, Cranm. App. N°. 46. 
under the title of, ** The sententious saymgs of Master Martin Bucer 
" upon the Lord's Supper.**] 

^ [The Epistle referred to was prefixed to a Collection of authorities 
on tiie Lord's Supper, formed bv Melancthon in 1530, and was ad- 
dressed, as is remarked afterwarcfs by Cranmer, not to CEcoIampadius, 
but to Frederic Myconius. It will be found at length in Hospinian, 
Hiii. Sacrament, torn. ii. p. 114. Respecting the change in Melancthon's 
opinions on this subject see the same work, pp. 68, 115, &c.] 

' [Strype describes the book thus : "I add another book in quarto of 
** a foreigner, dedicated this year [1548] to the King in a long Epistle 
*' dated from Hamburgh. Ine author was Johannes ^pinus. The 
^ subjects of his book were, De Purgaiorio, SatUfactiotiibuSy Remissione 
** Cutparum et Parutf ^c. This ^pinus was chief minister of the Church 
** of llambureh, and was sent twelve years before as envo^ from Ham- 
" buigh into En^and to King Henry upon matters of religion." Strype, 
Memorial*, vol. ii. p. 146.] 

E 4 


BOOK against the Church of Rome, doth in the matter of the sacraqcient 
write as followeth^. Eiicharistia is called by itself a sacrifice, be- 

cause it is a remembrance of the true sacrifice offered upon the 
cross, and that in it is dispensed the true body and true blood of 
Christ, which is plainly the same in essence, (that is to say, sub- 
stance,) and the same blood in essence signifying, though the 
manner of presence be spiritual, yet the substance of that is pre- 
sent, is the same with that in heaven. 
Erasinns Erasmus noted a man that durst, and did speak of all abuses 
commend- in the Church liberally, taken for no papist, and among us so 
world the ™uch esteemed, as his Paraphrases of the Gospel is ordered to be 
work of Al- had in every church of this realm, declareth in divers of his 
Mcrameot. works most manifestly his faith of the presence of Christ*s body 
The bod^of in the sacrament; and by his epistles recommendeth to the world 
den under' ^^^ work of Algenis in that matter of the sacrament, whom he 
the signs- noteth well exercised in the Scriptures and the old doctors, Cy- 
would all to P^&°» Hilarie, Ambrose, Hierome, Augustine, Basil, Cbrysostom; 

repent that and for Erasmus* own judKment, he saith we have an inviolable 

follow Be- . , 

rengarius' foundation of Christ*s own words. This is my body, rehearsed again 

error. by St. Paul. He saith further : the body of Christ is hidden under 

those signs; and showeth also upon what occasions men have 
erred in reading the old Fathers, and wisheth that they which 
have followed Berengarius in error, would also follow him in re- 
pentance. I will not, reader, encumber thee with mo words of 
Peter Mar- Peter Martyr of Oxford, taken for no papist, in a treatise he 
mth I'm ™^® ^^ 1^^® ^^ ^^^ sacrament, which is now translated into Eu- 
impugntbe glish, showeth how as touching the real presence of Christ's body, 

Mcniment! *^ '* ^^^ ^^^^ ^^ sentence of the papists, but of other also, whom 
[1580.] the said Peter nevertheless doth with as many shifts and lies as 
he may, impugn for that point, as well as he doth the papists for 
transubstantiation ; but yet he doth not, as this author doth, im- 
pute that faith of the real presence of Christ's body and blood to 

^ [This passage is quoted in such a manner by Gardyner, that it is 
difficult to distinguish what belongs to ^pinus, from that which was 
written by himself. The original Latin therefore is subjoined. *' £u- 
** charistia per se sacrificium appellata est, quod veri sacrificii in cruce 
** obluti commemoratio est, et quod in ea verum corpus et verus sanguis 
*' Christi dispensatur, qui essentia plane idem est cum illo, quod tradi- 
** turn est et qui fusus est in cruco." Joan. £pinus, Liber de Purga^ 
torio, &c. fol. 58. b.] 


4 the only papists. Whereupon, reader, here I join with the author BOOK 
an issue, that the faith of the real and substantial presence of. 

Christ's body and blood in the sacrament, is not the device of pa- Ad issue. 
pistil, or their faith only, as this author doth considerately slander would, with 
it to be, and desire therefore, that according to Salomon^s judg- ^^ ennous 
ment this may serve for a note and mark, for to give sentence for papisb, 
the true mother of the child. For what should this mean, so oppi^ess 
without shame openly and untruly to call this faith papish, but [1580.] 
only with the envious word of papist to overmatch the truth. 

This explication of the true catholic faith noteth to the 
reader certain evident and manifest untruths, uttered by me, 
as he suth, which I also pray the good reader to note, for 
this intent, that thou mayest take the rest of my sayings for 
true, which he noteth not for false, and doubtless they 
should not have escaped noting as well as the other, if 
they had been untrue, as he saith the other be. And if I 
can prove these things also true, which he noteth for mani- 
fest and evident untruths, then metliinketh it is reason that all 
my sayings should be allowed for true, if those be proved 
true, which only be rejected as untrue. But this untruth 
is to be noted in him generally, that he dther ignorantly 
mistaketh, or willingly misreporteth almost all that I say. 
But now note, good reader, the evident and manifest un- 
truths which I utter, as he saith. The first is, that the Four mani- 
futh of the real presence is the faith of the papists. An- ^^^^' 
other is, that these words, my Jlesh is verily meaty I trans- 
late thus: my Jlesh is very meat. Another is, that I 
handle not sincerely the words of St. Augustine, speaking 
of the eating of Christ's body. The fourth is, that by these 
words. This is my body^ Christ intendeth not to make the 
bread his body, but to signify that such as receive that wor- 
thily, be members of Chrisfs body. These be the heinous 
and manifest errors which I have uttered. 

> As touching the first, that the faith of the real and sub- 1^ first 
stantial presence of Christ^s body and blood in the sacra- UMtUie 
ment, is the faith of the papists, this is no untruth, but a^"^^ °'^^ 
most certain truth. For you confess yourself, and defend sence is the 


BOOK in this book, that it is your faith : and so do likewise all the 
'• papists. And here I will make an issue with you, that the 

faitiiofthe papists believe the real^ corporal, and natural presence of 
Mine issue, (^hrist'^s body and blood in the sacrament. Answer me 
[158a] directly without colour, whether it be so or not. If they be- 
lieve not so, then they believe as I do, for I believe not so : 
and then let them openly confess that my belief is true. 
And if they believe so, then say I true, when I say tl\at it 
is the papists^ faith. And then is my saying no manifest un- 
truth, but a mere truth, and so the verdict in the issue 
passeth upon my side by your own confes^on. 

And here the reader may note well, that once again you 3 
Lather, \^ f^^JQ ^ f}^ fQf guccour unto Martin Luther, Bucer, Jonas, 

Buoer^ ^ ^ ' 

Jonas, Melancthon and uGpinus, whose names before were wont to 
MeuiDc- jj^ g^ hateful unto you, that you could never with patience 
Epinus. abide the hearing of them. And yet their sayings help you 
nothing at all. For although these men in this and many 
other things, have in times past, and yet peradventure some 
do (the veil of the old darkness not clearly in every point re- 
moved from their eyes) agree with the papists in part of 
this matter, yet they agree not in the whole ; and therefore 
it is true nevertheless, that this faith which you teach is the 
papists^ faith: for, if you would conclude that this is not the 
papists^ faith, because that Luther, Bucer, and other believe 
in many things as the papists do ; then by the same reason 
you may conclude, that the papists believe not that Christ 
was born, crucified, died, rose again, and ascended into 
heaven, which things, Luther, Bucer, and the other con- 
stantly both taught and believed. 

And yet the faith of the real presence may be called 
rather the faith of the papbts than of the other, not only 
because the papists do so believe, but specially, for that 
the papists were the first authors and inventors of that faith, 
and have been the chief spreaders abroad of it, and were the 
cause that other were blinded with the same error. 

But here may the reader note one thing by the way, that 
it is a foul clout that you would refuse to wipe your nose 
withal, when you take such men to prove your matter. 


whom you have hitherto accounted most vile and filthy he- BOOK, 
retics. And yet now you be glad to flee to them for succour, '* 
whom ye take for God'^s enemies, and to whom you have 
ever had a singular hatred. You pretend that you stay 
yourself upon ancient writers: and why run you now to 
such men for aid, as be not only new, but also, as you think, 
be evil and corrupt in judgment ? and to such as think you, 
by your writings and doings, as rank a papist as is any at 

And yet not one of these new men, whom you allege, do 
throughly agree with your doctrine, either in transubstan- 
tiation, or in carnal eating and drinking of Christ's flesh and 
blood, or in the sacrifice of Christ in the mass, nor yet 
thorouglily in the real presence. For they afiirm not such 
a gross presence of Christ's body, as expelleth the substance 
of bread, and is made by conversion thereof into the sub- 
stance of Christ's body, and is eaten with the mouth. And 
yet if they did, the ancient authors that were next unto 
Christ's time, whom I have alleged, may not give place unto 
these new men in this matter, although they were men of 
excellent learning and judgment, howsoever it liketh you to 
accept them. 

But I may conclude that your faith in the sacrament is 
popish, until such time as you can prove that your doctrine 
of transubstantiation, and of the real presence, was univer- 
sally received and believed, before the Bishops of Rome de- 
fined and determined the same. And when you have 
proved that, then will I grant, that in your first note you 
have convinced me of an evident and manifest untruth ; 
and that I untruly charge you with the envious name of a 
papistical faith. 

But in your issue you term the words at your pleasure, 
and report me otherwise than I do say. For I do not say, 
4 that the doctrine of the real presence is the papists' faith 
only, but that it was the papists' faith, for it was their de- 
vice. And herein will I join with you an issue, that the pa- nfinc issue. 
pistical Church is the mother of transubstantiation, and of l^'^^*^ 
all the four principal errors which I impugn in my book. 



I- Winchester. 

It shall be now to purpose, to consider the Scriptures touching 
the matter of the sacrament, which the author pretending to bring 
forth faithfully as the majesty thereof requireth, in the rehearsal 
of the words of Christ out of che Gospel of St. John, he beginneth i 
a little too low, and passeth over that pertaineth to the matter, and 
therefore should have begun a little higher, at this clause : And the 
bread which I shali give you is my fleshy which I will give for the 
Ufe of the world. The Jews therefore strived between themselves^ 
saying : How can this man give his flesh to be eaten? Jesus there- 
fore said unto them. Verily, verikfy I say unto you. Except ye eat 
the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in 
you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal 
life, and I wiU raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is very 
meat, and my blood very drink. He that eateth my flesh, and 
drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and 1 in him. As the Uving 
Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father ; even so he that 
eateth me, shall live by me. This is the bread which came down 
from heaven : not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead : 
he that eateth this bread shall Uvefor ever. 

Here is also a fault in the translation of the text, which should ^ 
be thus in one place. For my flesh is verity meat, and my blood is 
verily drink. In which speech, the verb that coupleth the words 
flesh and meat together, kuitteth them together in their proper sig- 
nification ; so as the flesh of Christ is verily meat, and not figu- 
ratively meat, as the author would persuade. And in these words 
of Christ may appear plainly, how Christ taught the mystery of 
the food of his humanity, which he promised to give for food, 
even the same flesh that he said he would give for the life of the ^ 
world ; and so expresseth the first sentence of this Scripture 
here by me wholly brought forth, that is to say : And the bread 
which I shall give you is my flesh, which I shall give for the life of 
the world. And so it is plain that Christ spake of flesh in the 
same sense that St. John speaketh in, saying: The word was 
made flesh, signifying by flesh the whole humanity. And so did 

Cyril and CjrW agree to Nestorius, when he, upon these texts, reasoned how . 

Nestoriui. this eating is to be understanded of Christ's humanity, to which na- 
ture in Christ's person is properly attribute, to be eaten as meat 
spiritually to nourish man, dispensed and given in the sacrament. 


And between Nestorius and Cyril was this diversity in under- BOOK, 
standing the mystery, that Nestorius esteeming of each nature in ' 

Christ a several person^ (as it was objected to him,) and so dissolv- 
ing the ineffable unity, did so repute the body of Christ to be 
eaten as the body of a man separate. Cyril maintained the body 
of Christ to be eaten as a body inseparably united to the Godhead, 
and for the inefiable mystery of that union, the same to be a flesh 

6 that giveth life. And then as Christ saith. If we eat not the flesh 
of the Son of man^ we have not life in its ; because Christ hath or- 
dered the sacrament of his most precious body and blood to nou- 
rish such as be by his Holy Spirit regenerate. And as in baptism In baptism 

S we receive the Spirit of Christ, for the renewing of our life, so do ^? ll^^f '^^ 
we in this sacrament of Christ s most precious body and blood, spirit to 
receive Christ's very flesh and drink his very blood, to continue ^^^i* * 
and preserve, increase and augment the life received. Lord's Sup. 

And therefore in the same form of words Christ spake to Ny- ^fve b'*^^" 
codemus of baptism, that he speaketh here of the eating of bis flesb and 
body and drinking his blood; and in both sacraments, giveth, <lis-eou^^ 
penseth, and exhibiteth in deed those celestial gifts in sensible ele- life. 
ments as Chrysostom saith. And because the true faithful believing ^'^^^'J 
men do only by faith know the Son of man to be in unity of per- 
son the Son of God, so as for the unity of the two natures in 
Christ in one person, the flesh of the Son of man is the proper 
flesh of the Son of God. 

St. Augustine said well, when he noted these words of Christ, 
** Verily, verily, unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, &c.** to 
be a figurative speech, because after the bare letter it seemeth un- 
profitable, considering that flesh profiteth nothing in itself, es- 
teemed in the own nature alone ; but as the same flesh in Christ 
is united to the divine nature, so is it, as Christ said, after CyriPs 
exposition, spirit and life, not changed into the divine nature of 
the spirit, but for the ineffable union in the person of Christ 
thereunto, it is v'mificatrix, as Cyril said, and as the holy Ephesine 
Council decreed, a flesh giving life, according to Christ*8 words : 
Who$o eateth my fleshy and drinketh my bloody hath eternal life, and 
I will raise him up at the latter day. And then to declare unto 
us, how in gpving this life to us, Christ useth the instrument of 
his very human body, it followetli : For my flesh is verUy meatj 
and my blood verily drink. So like as Christ sanctifieth by his 
godly spirit, so doth he sanctify us by his godly flesh : and there- 


BOOK fore repeateth agiun, to inculcate the celestial thing of this mys- 
^' tery, and saith. He thai eateth my fiesh^ and drinkeih my blood, 
dweUeth in me, and I in him ; which is the natural and corporal 
union between us and Christ. Whereupon followeth, that as 
Christ is naturally in his Father, and his Father in him ; so he 
that eateth verily the flesh of Christ, he is by nature in Christ, and 
Christ is naturally in him, and the worthy receiver hath life in- 
creased, augmented, and con6rmed by the participation of the 
flesh of Christ. 

And because of the ineffitble union of the two natures, Christ 
said. This is the food thai came doum from heaven ; because God, 
whose proper flesh it is, came down from heaven, and hath another 
virtue than manna had; because this giveth life to them that worthily 
receive it, which manna, being but a figure thereof, did not, but 
being in this food Christ's very flesh inseparably unite to the God- 
head, the same is of such efficacy, as he that worthilv eateth of 
it, shall live for ever. And thus I have declared the sense of 
Christ's words, brought forth out of the Gospel of St. John. 
Whereby appeareth how evidently they set forth the doctrine of 
the mystery of the eating of Christ's flesh and drinking his blood 
in the sacrament, which must needs be understanded of a corpo- 
ral eating, as Christ did after order in the institution of the said 7 
sacrament, according to his promise and doctrine here declared. 

Here, before you enter into my second untruth, as you 
call it, you find fault by the way, that in the rehearsal of 
the words of Christ out of the Gospel of St. John, I begin a 
little too low. But if the reader consider the matter for the 
which I allege St. John, he shall well perceive that I began 
at the right place where I ought to begin. For I do not 
bring forth St. John for the matter of the real presence of 
Christ in the sacrament, (whereof is no mention made in that 
chapter, and as it would not have served me for that pur- 
pose, no more doth it serve you, although you cited the 
whole Gk)spel,) but I bring St. John for the matter of eating 
Christ^s flesh and drinking his blood, wherein I passed over 
nothing that pertaineth to that matter, but rehearse the 
whole fully and faithfully. And because the reader may 
the better understand the matter, and judge between us 


both, I shall rehearse the words of my former book, which BOOK 
be these. '• 

[See vol. ii. p. 291—298. " The Supper of the Lord'' 
*^ live for ever.*"] 

Here have I rehearsed the words of Christ faithfully and 
fully, so much as pert£uneth to the eating of Christ's flesh 
and drinking of his blood. And I have begun neither too 
high nor too low, but taking only so much as served for the 

But here have I committed a fault, say you, in the trans- The second 
laUon, for verilif meatf translating very meat. And this is an- f °J^iy ^^^ 
other of the evident and manifest untruths by me uttered, meat," 
as you esteem it. Wherein a man may see how hard it is <™cry *°^ 
to escape the reproaches of Momus. For what an horrible "****•" 
crime, trow you, is committed here, to call very meat that 
which is verily meat f As who should say, that very meat 
is not verily meaty or that which is verily meat were not 
very meat. The old authors say very meaty ikrfStis fipwris, 
verus dbuSy in an hundred places^. 

And what skilleth it for the diversity of the words, where 
no diver^ty is in the sense? And whether we say, very 
meaty or verily meaty it is a figurative speech in this place, 
and the sense is all one ; and if you will look upon the New 
Testament lately set forth in Greek by Robert Stevens, you 
shall see that he had three Greek copies, which in the said 
nxth chapter of John have ^7|^s, and not iLKr)Om. So 
that I may be bold to say, that you find fault here where 
none is. 

And here in this place you show forth your old condition. The nature 
which you use much in this book, in following the nature of °^*^"^^®' 

* Origenes, In Levit. Horn. 7. " Propterea ergo et caro ejus verus 
'' est cibuSy et sanguis ejus verus est potus.^ £t In Matt. Horn. 13. 
'* Caro mea vera est esca, et sanguis meus verus est potus.'' Hieron. In 
EccUt. cap. Hi. ** Caro enim verus est cibus, et sanguis ejus verus est 
** potus.** August. In Psalm, xxxiii. " Caro mea vera est esca, et 
** sanguis meus vere potus est.'' Damasc. lib. iv. cap. 14. " Caro mea 
** verus est cibus, et sanguis meus verus est potus." Euthymius, In 
Joan. cap. ix. " Caro mea verus est cibus, et sanguis meus verus est 
« potus.^ [1580.] 


BOOK a cuttle. ** The property of the cuttle,*** saith Pliny", 
** is to cast out a black ink or colour whensoever she spieth 

*^ herself in danger to be taken, that the water being trou- 
^^ bled and darkened therewith, she may hide herself, and 
^* so escape untaken.*" After like manner do you throw out 
this whole book. For when you see none other way to fly 
and escape, then you cast out your black colours, and make 
yourself so in clouds and darkness, that men should not dis- 
cern where you become : which is a manifest argument of 
untrue meaning; for he that meaneth plainly, spcaketh 
EccIqs. plainly: Et qui sophistice loquitur, odibilis est, saith the 
'""^ wise man. For he that speaketh obscurely and darkly, it 
is a token that he goeth about to cast mists before menu's 
eyes, that they should not see, rather than to open their 
eyes that they may clearly see the truth. 
Christ U And therefore to answer you plainly, the same flesh that 3 
troiv^iriven ^*® given in Christ'^s last supper, was given also upon the 
in the sa- cross, and is given daily in the ministration of the sacrament, 
but^^ ' B"^ although it be but one thing, yet it was diversely given. 
•piritaaUy. For upon the cross Christ was carnally pven to suffer and 
to die : at his last supper he was spiritually given in a pro- 
mise of his death, and in the sacrament he is daily given in 
remembrance of his death. And yet it is all but one Christ 
that was promised to die, that died in deed, and whose 
death is remembered ; that is to say, the very same Christ, 
the eternal Word that was made flesh. And the same flesh 
was also given to be spiritually eaten, and was eaten in deed 
before his supper, yea and before his incarnation also. Of 
which eating, and not of sacramental eaUng, he spake in the 
John yi. ^xth of John, My flesh is very meat, and my blood is very 
drink : he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, 
dweUeth in me, and I in him. 

And Cyril n, I grant, agreed to Nestoriusin the substance 4 
of the thing that was eaten, which is Christ^s very flesh, but 
in the manner of eating they varied. For Nestorius ima^ned 
a carnal eating, as the papists do, with mouth, and tearing 


Plin. lib. ix. cap. 29. [1580.] " Cyrii. Anatbematisroo xi. 


with teeth, but Cyril in the same place saith, that Christ BOOK 
is eaten only by a pure faith, and not that he is eaten cor- ^' 
porally with our mouths, as other meats be, nor that he is 
eaten in the sacrament only. 

And it seemeth you understand not the matter of Nesto- Nestorius. 
lius, who did not esteem Christ to be made of two several 
natures and several persons, as you report of him, but his 
error was, that Christ had in him naturally but one nature 
and one person, affirming that he was a pure man and not 
God by nature, but that the Godhead by grace inhabited, 
as he doth in other men. 

5 And where you say that in baptism we receive the Spirit Injury to 
of Christ, and in the sacrament of his body and blood we^***^'"* 
receive his very flesh and blood: this your saying is no 
small derogation to baptism, wherein we receive not only 

the Spirit of Christ, but also Christ himself, whole body 
and soul, manhood and Godhead, unto everlasting life, as 
well as in the holy communion. For St. Paul saith, Qni-Gal. iii. 
cunque in Christo bapHzati esHs^ Christum induisHsj As 
many as be baptized in Christy put Christ upon them: 
Nevertheless, this is done in divers respects ; for in baptism it 
is done in respect of regeneration, and in the holy commu- 
nion, in respect of nourishment and augmentation. 

6 But your understanding of the sixth chapter of John is lu the sixth 
such as never was uttered of any man before your time, john^^ ^ 
and as dedareth you to be utterly ignorant of God^s mys- Christ 
teries. For who ever sud or taught before this time^ that of corporal 
the sacrament was the cause why Christ said, If we eat not ^^^1°?-. 
ihejlesh of the Son of man^ we have not life inusf The 
spiritual eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood by 

faith, by digesting his death in our minds, as our only price, 
ransom, and redemption from eternal damnation, is the cause 
wherefore Christ said, that ^we eat not his fleshy and drink 
nothis bloody wehavenot life in us: and if we eat his flesh, 
and drink his blood, we have everlasting life. And if 
Christ had never ordained the sacrament^ yet should we 
have eaten his flesh and drunken his blood, and have had 
thereby everlasting life, as all the faithful did before the sa- 




BOOK crament was ordained, and do daily, when they receive not 
^' the sacrament. And so did the holy men that wandered 

in the wilderness, and in all their lifetime very seldom re- 
ceived the sacrament, and many holy martyrs, either exiled 
or kept in prison, did daily feed of the food of Christ'^s body, 
and drank daily the blood that sprang out of his ^de, (or 
else they could not have had everlasting life, as Christ him- 
self sud in the Gospel of St John,) and yet they were not 
suffered with other Christian people to have the use of the 
sacrament. And therefore your argument in this place is 
but slJoBclx a non causa^ ut causa^ which is another trick of 
the Devirs sophistry. 

And that in the uxth of John, Christ spake neither of 7 
corporal nor sacramental eating of his flesh, the time mani- 
festly showeth. For Christ spake of the same present time 

John y\, that was then, saying. The bread which I wiU give is my 
Jksh : and. He thai ecUeth my fleshy and drinketh my bloody 
dweUeth in me, and I in him, and hcUh everlasting life. At 
which time the sacramental bread was not yet Christ's flesh, 
for the sacrament was not then yet ordained; and yet at that 
time all that believed in Christ did eat his flesh and drink 
his blood, or else they could not have dwelled in Christ, nor 
Christ in them. 

Moreover you say yourself, that in the sixth of St John'^s 

Jobn ri. Grospel, when Christ said. The bread is my fleshy by the 
word ^^flesh^ he meant his whole humanity, as is meant in this 

John i. sentence, llie Word teas made flesh ; which he meant not in 
the word *^ body,^ when he said of bread. This is my body, 
whereby he meant not his whole humanity, but his flesh 
only, and neither his blood nor his soul. And in the sixth 
of John, Christ made not bread his flesh, when he said. The 
bread is my fleshy but he expounded in those words, what 
bread it was that he meant of, when he promised them bread 
that should give them eternal life. He declared in those 
words, that himself was the bread that should give life, be- 
cause they should not have their phantasies of any bread 
made of corn. And so the eating of that heavenly bread 
could not be understanded of the sacrament, nor of corporal 


eating with the mouth, but of spiritual eating by faith, as BOOK 
all the old authors do most clearly expound and declare. ^' 
And seeing that there is no corporal eating, but chawing 
with the teeth or swallowing, as all men do know, if we eat 
Christ corporally, then you must confess, that we either 
swallow up Chrises flesh, or chaw and tear it with our 
teeth, as Pope Nicholas constrained Berengarius to confess, 
which, St. Augustine saith, is a wicked and heinous thing. 
But in few words to answer to this second evident and ma- 
nifest untruth, (as you object against me,) I would wish you 
as truly to understand these words of the sixth chapter of 
John, as I have truly translated them. 


I Now, where the author, to exclude the mystery of corporal 
manducatioD, bringeth forth of St. Augustine such words as en- 
treat of the effect and operation of the worthy receiving of the sa- 
crament, the handling is not so sincere as this matter requireth. 

3 For, as hereafter shall be entreated, that is not worthily and well 
done, may, because the principal intent failelh, be called not done, 
and so St. Augustine saith, *' Let him not think to eat the body 
'* of Christ, that dwelleth not in Christ,** not because the body of 
Christ is not received, which, by St. Augustine*s mind, evil men 
do to their condemnation, but because the effect of life faileth. 

a And so the author by sleight, to exclude the corporal manducation 
of Christ's most precious body, uttereth such words as might 
sound Christ to have taught the dwelling in Christ to be an eat- 
ing, which dwelling may be without this corporal manducation 
in him that cannot attain the use of it, and dwelling in Christ is 

4 an etkct of the worthy manducation, and not the manducation 
itself, which Christ doth order to be practised in the most precious 
sacrament institute in his supper. Here thou, reader, mayest see, 
how this doctrine of Christ, as I have declared it, openeth the 

5 corporal manducation of his most holy flesh and drinking of his 
roost precious blood, which he gave in his supper under the forms 
of bread and wine. 

I This is the third evident and manifest untruth whereof The third 
you note me* And because you say, that in citing of St. ^e^imd-^^ 




BOOK Augustine in this place^ I handle not the matter so fiincerely 
as it requireth : let here be an issue between you and me, 

^^°s^^^ which of us both doth handle this matter more sincerely, 
St. AogoB- and I will bring such manifest evidence for me^ that you 

MiDe iflsue ^^^ ^^^ ^ ^^^ ^ ^P^^ your mouth against it. For I 
[15^] allege St. Augustine justly as he speaketh, adding nothing 
of myself. The words in my book be these. 

[See vol. ii. p. 293. " Of these words'*- 
" Saviour Christ.''] 



Thus allege I St. Augustine truly, without adding any 
thing of mine own head, or taking any thing away. And 2 
what sleight I used is easy to judge ; for I cite directly the 
places, that every man may see whether I say true or no. 
And if it be not true, quarrel not with me, but with St. 
Augustine, whose words I only rehearse. And that which 
St. Augustine saith, spake before him St. Cyprian, and 
Christ himself also plainly enough; upon whose words I 
thought I might be as bold to build a true doctrine for the 
setting forth of God's glory, as you may be to pervert both 
the words of Cyprian and of Christ himself to stablish a 
false doctrine, to the high dishonour of God, and the cor- 3 
ruption of his most true word. For you add this word 
Worthily. *' worthily," whereby you gather such an unworthy meaning 
of St. Augustine's words, as you list yourself. And the same 
you do to the very words of Christ himself, who speaketh 
absolutely and plainly without adding of any such word as 
you put thereto. What sophistry this is you know well 
enough. Now if this be permitted unto you to add what 
you list, and to expound how you list, then you may say 
what you list without controlment of any man, which it 
seemeth you look for. 

And not of like sort, but of like evilness do you handle, 
in reprehending of my second untruth as you call it, another 
place of St. Augustine, in his book DeDoctrina ChrisHanc^ 
where he saith, that ^* the eating and drinking of Christ's 
flesh and blood is a figurative speech :" which place you ex- 
® Augustine, De Doctrina Chriitiana, lib. iii. cap. 4. 

flesh is 


pound so far from St. Augustine^s meaning, that whosoever boor 
looketh upon his words, may by and by discern, that you ^* 
do not or will not understand him. But it is most like, the 
words of him being so plain and easy, that purposely you 
will not understand him, nor nothing else that is against 
your will, rather than you will go from any part of your 
will and received opinion. For it is plain and clear, that 
St. Augustine in that place speaketh not one word of the se- 
paration of the two natures in Christ, and although Christ^ s 
flesh be never so surely and inseparably united unto his 
Godhead, (without whidi union it could profit nothing,) yet 
being so joined, it is a very man^s flesh, the eating whereof, 
after the proper speech of eating, is horrible and abominable. 
Wherefore the eating of Christ'^s flesh must needs be other- 
wise understanded, than after the proper and common eating 
of other meats with the mouth, which eating after such sort 
could SLvail nothing. And therefore St. Augustine in that 
place declareth the eating of Christ^s flesh to be only a figu- 
rative speech. And he openeth the figure so, as the eating 
must be meant with the mind, not with the mouth, that is 
to say, by chawing and digesting in our minds, to our great 
consolation and profit, that Christ was crucified and died 
for us. Thus doth St. Augustine open the figure and meaning 
of Christ, when he spake of the eating of his flesh and 
drinking of his blood. And his flesh being thus eaten, it 
must also be joined unto his Divinity, or else it could not 
give everlasting life, as Cyril and the Council Ephesine truly 
decreed. But St. Augustine declared the figurative speech 
of Christ to be in the eating, not in the union. And where- 
as to shift off the plain words of Christ spoken in the sixth of John ▼!. 
John, He thai eateth my fleshy and drinketh my bloody 
4dwetteth in me and I in him^ you say, that dwelling in 
Christ is not the manducation: you say herein directly 
against St Cyprian P, who saith, ^* quod mansio nostra in 
ipso, sit manducatio,^ ^* that our dwelling in him, is the 
eating.^ And also against St. Augustine*), whose words be 

9 Cjprianus in Sermone de Cana Domini. 
4 Angastinaty In Joannem^ tract, xxvi. 



BOO K these : ^* Hoc est ergo manducare escam illam, et ilium bibere 
^' ** potum, in Christo manere, et ilium manentem in se ha- 
^* bere,^ ^* This is to eat that meat, and drink that drink, to 
** dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him.*^ 
And although the eating and drinking of Christ be here de- 
6ned by the effect, for the very eating is the believing, yet 
wheresoever the eating is, the effect must be also, if the de- 
6nition of St. Augustine be truly given. And therefore 
although good and bad eat carnally with their teeth bread, 
being the sacrament of Christ^s body, yet no man eateth his 
very flesh, which is spiritually eaten, but he that dwelleth in 
Christ, and Christ in him. 

And where in the end you refer the reader to the declara- 
tion of Christ^s words, it is an evil sequel ; you declare Chrisf s 5 
words thus : ErgOj they be so meant. For by like reason 
might Nestorius have prevailed against Cyril, Arrius against 
Alexander, and the Pope against Christ. For they all 
prove their errors by the doctrine of Christ, after their own 
declarations, as you do here in your corporal manducation. 
But of the manducation of Christ'^s flesh I have spoken 
more fully in my fourth book, the second, third, and fourth 

Now before I answer to the fourth untruth which I am 
appeached of, I will rehearse what I have said in the matter, 
and what fault you have found : my book hath thus : 

[See vol. ii. p. 293—297. " Now as touching'' 

** Amen.''] 


Now let us consider the texts of the Evangelists, and St. Paul, 
which be brought in by the author as folio weth. 
Matt.zxvi. fVhen they were eatings Jesus took breod, and wfien he had 
given thanks, he brake it, gave it to his disciples, and said. Take, 
eat, this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given 
thanks, he gave it to them, saying. Drink ye all of this, for this is 
my blood of the new testament that is shed for many for the remis- 
sion of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of 
this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it new with 
you in my Fathers kingdom. 


As they did eat, Jesus took breads and when he had blessed, he BOOK 
brake it, and gave it to them, and said. Take, eat, this is my body. 

And taking the cup, wften he had given thanks, he gave it to them, ^^^ ^'^* 
and they all drank of it. And fte said to them, This is my blood of 
the new testament, which is shed for many. Verity I say unto you, 
I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, untU that day that I 
drink it new in the kingdom of God. 

When the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve Apostles Lake xxii. 
with hitn: and he said unto them, I have greatly desired to eat this 
Pascha with you before I suffer. For I say unto you, henceforth I 
wiU not eat of it any more^ until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of 
God. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this 
and divide it among you. For I say unto you, I will not drink of 
the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God come. And he took 
bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave it 
unto them, saying. This is my body, which is given for you : this 
do in retnembrance of me. Likewise also, when he had supped, he 
took the cup, saying. This cup is the new testament in my blood, 
which is shed for you. 

Is not the cup of blessing, wfuch we bless, a communion of the i Cor. x. 
blood of Christ ? Is not the bread which we break a communion of 
the body of Christ ? We being many, are one bread and one body^ 
far we are all partakers of one bread and of one cup. 

That which I delivered unto you, I received of the Lord. For i Cor. xi. 
the Lord Jesus, the same night in the which he was betrayed, took 
bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake U, and said. Take, 
eat, this is my body, which is broken for you : do this in remem^ 
trance of me. Likewise also he took the cup when supper was 
done, saying. This cup is the new testament in my blood: do this, as 
often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me : for as often as you 
shall eat this bread and drink of this cup, ye show forth the Lord^s 
death tUl he come. Wherefore, whosoever shall eat of this bread, or 
drink of this cup unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood 
of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so eat of the 
bread, asid drink of the cup. For he that eateth and drinketh un- 
worthily eateth and drinketh his own damnation, because He maketh 
no difference of the Lord's body. For this cause, many are weak and 
sick among you, and many do sleep. 

After these teita brought in, the author doth, in the fourth 
I chapter, b^n to traFerse Christ's intent, that be intended not by 

F 4 


BOOK these words, TMm is my body, to make the bread his body : but to 
' signify, that such as receive that worthily, be members of Christ's 

The fourth body. The catholic Church acknowledgiog Christ to be very God 
tlulrbv ^^^ ^^^ nujkt hath from the beginning upon these texts of Scrip* 
these ture confessed truly Christ's intent and effectual miraculous work, 2 

Isicmvus^^ make the bread his body, and the wine his blood, to be verily 
meum, meat, and verily drink, using therein his humanity wherewith to 3 

meant not ^^^ "^ ^ ^^ ^^ ^^^ same wherewith to redeem us 5 and as he 
to make the doth sanctify us by his holy Spirit, so to sanctify us by his holy 
y^ *' divine flesh and blood ; and as life is renewed in us by the gift of 
[1580.] Christ's holy Spirit, so life to be increased in us, by the gift of 
his holy flesh. So, as he that believeth in Christ, and receiveth 
the sacrament of belief, which is baptism, receiveth really Christ's 
Spirit : so he that having Christ's Spirit receiveth also the sa- 
crament of Christ's body and blood, doth really receive in the 
same, and also effectually Christ's very body and blood. And 
therefore Christ in the institution of this sacrament said, de- 
livering that he consecrated. This is my body, 8sc. And likewise 
of the cup, T?us is my blood. And although to man's reason it 
seeroeth strange, that Christ standing or sitting at the table 
should deliver them his body to be eaten : yet when we re- 
member Christ to be very God, we must grant him omnipotent, 4 
and by reason thereof, repress in our thoughts all imaginations 
how it might be, and consider Christ's intent, by his will preached 
unto us by Scriptures, and believed universally in his Church. 
But if it may now be thought seemly for us to be so bold, in so 
high a mystery to begin to discuss Christ's intent j what should 
move us to thinks that Christ would use so many words, without 
efiectual and real signification, as he rehearsed touching the mys- 5 
terv of this sacrament ? 

First, in the sixth of John, when Christ had taught of the 
eating of him, being the bread descended from heaven, and 6 
declaring that eating to signify believing, whereat was no mur- 
muring, that then he should enter to speak of giving of his flesh 
to be eaten, and his blood to be drunken, and to say he would 
give a bread, that is, his flesh, which he would give for the life of 
the world. In which words Christ maketh mention of two gifts, 7 
and therefore, as he is truth, must needs intend to fulfil them both. 
And therefore as we believe the gift of his flesh to the Jews to be 
crucified ; so we must believe the gift of his flesh to be eaten. 


and of that gift, livery and seisin, as we say, to be made of him, BOOK 
that is in his promises faithful, as Christ is to be made in both. ' 

8 And therefore, when he said in his supper, Take^ eat, this is my 
body, he must needs intend plainly, (as his words of promise re- 
quired, and these words in his supper purport,) to give as really 
then his body to be eaten of us, as he gave his body in deed to 
be crucified for us, aptly nevertheless and conveniently for each 
effect, and therefore in manner of giving diversely, but in the 
substance of the same given, to be as his words bear witness 
the same, and therefore said. This is my body, that shall be 6e- 
trayedfor you, expressing also the use when he said, Take, eat ; 
which words, in delivering of material bread, had been superfluous. 
For what should men do with bread, when they take it, but eat 
it ? specially when it is broken ? 

9 But, as Cyril saith, Christ opened there unto them the practice 
of that doctrine he spake of in the sixth of St. John, and because 
he said, he would give his flesh for food, which he would give for 
the life of the world, he, for fulfilling of his promise, said. Take, 
eat, tfus is my body ; which words have been taught, and believed 
to be of eflfect and operatory, and Christ under the form of bread 
to have given his very body. According whereunto St. Paul noteth 
the receiver to be guilty, when he doth not esteem it our Lord's 
body wherewith it pleaseth Christ to feed such as be in him re- 
generate, to the intent that as man was redeemed by Christ, suf- 
fering in the nature of his humanity, so to purchase for man the 
kingdom of heaven lost by Adam's fall ; even likewise in the na- 
ture of the same humanity, giving it to be eaten, he ordained it 
to nourish man and make him strong to walk and continue his 
journey, to enjoy that kingdom. And therefore to set forth 
lively unto us the communication of the substance of Christ's 
most precious body in the sacrament, and the same to be in deed 
delivered, Christ used plain words, testified by the Evangejists. 
St. Paul also rehearsed the same words in the same plain terms in 
the eleventh to the Corinthians ; and in the tenth, giving, as it were, 
an exposition of the eflect, useth the same proper words declaring 
the efkct to be the communication of Christ's body and blood. 

*o And one thing is notable touching the Scripture, that in such no- 
table speeches uttered by Christ, as might have an ambiguity, the 
Evangelists by some circumstance declared it, or sometime opened 
it by plain interpretation, as when Christ said, he would dissolve 


BOOK ^e temple, and within three days build it again : the Evangelist 

^' by and by addeth for interpretation : This he said of the temple of 

his body. And when Christ said. He is Helios, and / am the true 

vine : the circumstance of the text openeth the ambiguity. 

NeiUierSt. But to show that Christ should not mean of his very body when 

EvMTOlUte **® ^ ^P**^® • °®^^®'" ^^- P*"^ *^®'*' "® ^^« Evangelists in the place, 
add any add any words or circumstances, whereby to take away the proper 
whereby to ^"g'^'fication of the words " body** and " blood,** so as the same 
take away might seem not in deed given, as the catholic faith teacheth, but 
aition of '° signification, as the author would have it. For as for the words 
bread and of Christ, The spirit gioeth life, the flesh profiteth nothing, be to 
7i ?8o 1 <^^lsro ^^^ two natures in Christ, each in their property apart 
considered, but not as they be in Christ's person united, the mys- 
tery of which union, such as believed not Christ to be. God could 
not consider, and yet to insinuate that unto them, Christ made 
mention of his descension from heaven, and after of his ascension 
thither again, whereby they might understand him very God, 
whose flesh taken in the Virgin's womb, and so given spiritually 
to be eaten of us, is, as I have before opened, viviBc and giveth 

And this shall suffice here, to show how Christ's intent was to 
give verily, as he did in deed, his precious body and blood to be 1 1 
eaten and drunken, according as he taught them to be verily meat 
and drink, and yet gave and giveth them so under form of visible 
creatures to us, as we may conveniently, and without horror of 
our nature receive them, Christ therein condescending to our in- 
6rmity. As for such other wrangling, as is made in the under* 
standing of the words of Christ, shall after be spoken of, by 
further occasion. 

The fourth Now we be come to the very pith of the matter, and the i 
^aTchrist ^^*^^ point whereupoH the whole controversy hangeth, 
intended whether in these words, This is my body^ Christ called 
^^^'^hiesA his body : wherein you and Smith agree like a man 
» "*^^f^' '^d ^ woman that dwelled in Lincolnshire, as I have heard 
bread his reported, that what pleased the one, misliked the other, 
^7- saving that they both agreed in wilfulness; so do Smith 
nance be- and you agree both in this point, that Christ made bread 
anrsimth ^*® l^y» but that it was bread which he called his body. 


when he said, This is my body: this you grant, but Smith BOOK 
denieth it. And because all Smith's buildings clearly fall '' 

down, if this his chief foundation be overthrown, therefore ^s**"** 
must I first prove against Smith, that Christ called the ma- 
terial bread his body, and the wine which was the fruit of 
the vine, his blood. For " Why did you not prove this, my Christ 
** lord.**" saith Smith, " would you that men should take you hj, body. 
*^ for a prophet, or for one that could not err in his sayings P"" 
First I allege against Smith's negation your affirmation, 
which, as it is more true in this point than his negation, so 
for your estimation is it able to countervail his saying, if 
there were nothing else. And yet if Smith had well pon- 
dered what I have written in the second chapter of my 
second book, and in the seventh and eighth chapters of my 
third book, he should have found this matter so fully proved, 
that he neither is, nor never shall be able to answer thereto. 
For I have alleged the Scripture, I have alleged the consent 
of the old writers, holy fathers, and martyrs, to prove that 
Christ called bread his body, and wine his blood. For the Matt. xxvi. 
Evangelists, speaking of the Lord's supper, say, that he took L,3[e xxU. 
bread, blessed it, brake i/, and gave it to his disciples, 
saying. This is my body. And of the wine he said. Take 
this, divide it among you, and drink it, this is my blood, I 
have alleged Irene saying that ^^ Christ confessed bread to Irencas. 
*^ be his body, and the cup to be his blood." I have cited 
TertuUian, who saith, in many places, that ** Christ called Tertullia- 
^* bread his body." I have brought in for the same pur- 
pose Cyprian, who saith, that *^ Christ called such bread as Cyprianus. 
is made of many corns joined together, his body : and 
such wine be named his blood, as is pressed out of many 
*^ grapes.'^ I have written the words of Epiphanius, which Epipha- 
be these, that ^' Christ speaking of a loaf, which is round in '*'**** 
** fashion, and can neither see, hear, nor feel, said of it, 
" This is my bodyJ^ And St. Hierom writing Ad Hedibiam, Hieronym. 
saith, that ** Christ called the bread which he brake, his 
♦* body." And St. Augustine saith, that " Jesus called Aogusti- 
^* meat his body, and drink his blood." And Cyril saith Cyriiina. 


BOOK more plainly^ that *' Christ called the pieces of bread his 
*^ body.^ And last of all I brought forth Theodorete^ whose 


^^ saying is this, that *< when Christ gave the holy mysteries, 

^^ he called bread his body, and the cup mixed with wine 
*' and water, he called his blood.^ All these authors I 
alleged, to prove that Christ called bread his body, and wine 
his blood. 

Which because they speak the thing so plainly, as nothing 
can be more, and Smith seeth that he can devise nothing to 
answer these authors, like a wily fox, he stealeth away by 
them softly, as he had a flea in his ear, saying nothing to 
all these authors, but that they prove not my purpose. If 
this be a suflScient answer, let the reader be judge ; for in 
such sort could I make a short answer to Smithes whole 
book in this one sentence, that nothing that he sayeth, 
proveth his purpose. And as for proofs of his saying, 
Smythe hath utterly none, but only this fond reason, that 
if Christ had called bread his body, then should bread have 
been crucified for us, because Christ added these words. 
This is my body which shall be given to death Jbr you. If 
such wise reason shall take place, a man may not take a loaf 
in his hand made of wheat, that came out of Danske, and 
say. This is wheat that grew in Danske, but it must follow, 
that the loaf grew in Danske. And if the wife shall say. 
This is butter of mine own cow ;~ Smyth shall prove by this 
speech, that her maid milked butter. But to this phantas- 
tical, or rather frantic reason I have spoken more, in mine 
Answer to Smythe^s Preface. 

Howbeit you have taken a wiser way than this, granting 
that Christ called bread bis body, and wine his blood : but 
adding thereto, that Chrisf s calling was making. Yet here 
may they that be wise, learn by the way, how evil favouredly 
you and Smyth do agree among yourselves. 

And forasmuch as Smythe hath not made answer unto 
the authors by me alleged in this part, I may justly require, 
that for lack of answer in time and place where he ou^t to 
have answered, he may be condemned as one that standeth 


mute. And being oondemned in this his chief demur, he BOOK 
hath after nothing to answer at all. For this foundation ' 

being overthrown, all the rest falleth down withal. 

Wherefore now will I return to answer you in this matter, 
which is the last of the evident and manifest untruths, 
whereof you appeach me. 

I perceive here how untoward you be to learn the truth, 
being brought up all your life in papistical errors. If you 
could forget your law, which hath been your chief profes- 
sion and study fix)m your youth, and specially the canon 
law, which purposely corrupteth the truth of God's word, 
you should be much more apt to understand and receive 
the secrets of holy Scripture. But before those scales fall 
from your Saulish eyes, you neither can nor will perceive 
the true doctrine of this holy sacrament of Christ's body 
and blood. But yet I shall do as much as lieth in me, to 
teach and instruct you, as occasion shall serve, so that the 
fault shall be either in your evil bringing up altogether in 
popery, or in your dulness, or frowardness, if you attain not 
the true understanding of this matter. 
2 Where you speak of the miraculous working of Christ, God's mi- 
to make bread his body, you must first learn, that the bread ^orku in 
is not made really Christ^s body, nor the wine his blood, but ^^ ''"^* 

... incnt. 

sacramentally. And the miraculous working is not in the 
breads but in them that duly eat the bread, and drink that 
drink. For the marvellous work of God is in the feeding, 
and it is Christian people that be fed, and not the bread. 

And so the true confession and belief of the universal injury to 
Church from the be^nning, is not such as you many times ^ *™' 
aflBrm, but never can prove. For the catholic Church ac- 
3knowledgeth no such division between Christ's holy flesh 
and his Spirit, that life is renewed in us by his holy Spirit, 
and increased by his holy flesh, but the true faith confesseth, 
that both be done by his holy Spirit and flesh jointly to- 
gether, as well the renovation as the increase of our life. 
Wherefore you diminish here the effect of baptism, wherein 
is not given only Christ's Spirit^ but whole Christ. And 

I will join an issue with you. And you shall find, Mine issue. 


BOOK that although you think I lack law, wherewith to follow my 
' plea, yet I doubt not but I shall have help of God^s word 
enough to make all men perceive that you be but a ample 
divine ; so that for lack of your proofs, I doubt not but the 
sentence shall be given upon my side by all learned and in- 
different judges that understand the matter which is in con- 
troversy between us. 

God's om- And where you say that we must repress our thoughts 4 

oipo Dcy. ^^j imaginations, and by reason of Christ^s omnipotency 
judge his intent by his will, it is a most certain truth, that 
God''s absolute and determinate will is the chief governor of 
all things, and the rule whereby all things must be ordered 
and thereto obey. But where, I pray you, have you any 
such will of Christ, that he is really, carnally, corporally, 
and naturally under the forms of bread and wine ? There is 
no such will of Christ set forth in the Scripture, as you pre- 
tend by a false understanding of these words, This is my 
body. Why take you then so boldly upon you to say that 
this is Christ^s will and intent, when you have no warrant 
in Scripture to bear you ? 

It is not a sufficient proof in Scripture to say, God doth 
it, because he can do it. For he can do many things, which 
he neither doth nor will do. He could have sent mo than 

Matt. zxvi. twelve legions of angels to deliver Christ from the wicked 
Jews, and yet he would not do it. He could have created 

Gen. i. the world and all things therein in one moment of time, and 
yet his pleasure was to do it in six days. 

In all matters of our Christian faith, written in holy 
Scripture for our instruction and doctrine, how far soever 
they seem discrepant from reason, we must repress our ima- 
ginations, and consider God''s pleasure and will, and yield 
thereto, believing him to be omnipotent: and that by his 
omnipotent power such things are verily so, as holy Scrip- 
ture teacheth. Like as we believe that Christ was bom of 
the blessed Virgin Mary without company of man ; that our 
Saviour Christ the third day rose again from death ; that he 
in his humanity ascended into heaven ; that our bodies at the 
day of judgment shall rise again ; and many other such like 


things, which we all that be true Christian men, do believe BOOK 

firmly, because we find these things written in Scripture : '. 

and therefore we, knowing God^s omnipotency, do believe 
that he hath brought some of the said things to pass already, 
and those things that are yet to come, he will by the same 
omnipotency without doubt likewise bring to pass. 

Now if you can prove that your transubstantiation, your 
fleshly presence of Christ'^s body and blood, your carnal 
eating and drinking of the same, your propitiatory sacrifice 
of the mass, are taught us as plainly in the Scripture, as the 
said articles of our faith be, then I will believe that it is so 
in deed. Otherwise, neither I nor any man that is in his 
right wits, will believe your said articles, because Grod is 

. omnipotent, and can make it so. For you might so, under 
pretence of God^s omnipotency, make as many articles of 
our faith, as you list, if such arguments might take place ; 
that God by his omnipotent power can convert the substance 
of bread and wine into the substance of his flesh and blood : 
Ergo^ he doth so in deed. 
; And although Christ be not corporally in the bread and 
wine, yet Christ used not so many words in the mystery of 
his holy Supper, without efiectual signification. For he is 
effectually present, and efiectually worketh, not in the bread 
and wine, but in the godly receivers of them, to whom he 
giveth his own flesh spiritually to feed upon, and his own 
blood to quench their great inward thirst. 

6 And here I would wish you to mark very well one true Eatiog mg- 
sentence which you have uttered by the way, which is, that U^y^J^ 
Christ declared, that eating of him signifieth believing, and 
start not from it another time. And mark the same, I pray 
thee, gentle reader. For this one sentence assoileth almost 
all the arguments that be brought by this lawyer in his 
whole book against the truth. 

And yet to the said true saying you have joined another Three nn- 
untruth, and have yoked them both together in one sen- J^^\y'' 
tence. For when Christ had taught of the eating of him, yoa in tliis 
being the bread descended from heaven, there was no mur-^^efirat? 
muring thereat, say you ; which your saying I cannot but 


BOOK wonder at, to see you so far deceived in a matter so plain 
^' and manifest. And if I had spoken such an evident and 

manifest untruth, I doubt not but it should have been 
spoken of to Rome gates. For the text saith there plainly, 
John ri. Murmurobant Judcei de iBo, quod diaisset^ Ego sum pants 
vivuSf qui de cash descendi : The Jews murmured at Aim, 
because he saidy I am the bread of life that camiejrom heaven . 
But when you wrote this, it seemeth you looked a little too 
low, and should have looked higher. 

'And here by this one place the reader may gather of your 
own words your intent and meaning in this your book, if 
that be true which you said before, that ever, where conten- 
tion is, on what part the reader seeth in any one point an 
open manifest lie, there he may consider, whatsoever excuse 
be made of truth, yet the victory of truth not to be there in- 
Theaecond. Another untruth also foUoweth incontinently, that when 7 
John Ti. Christ said, The bread which I will give you^ is my jUsh^ 
which I will givejbr the life of the xoorld : in these words, 
say you, Christ maketh mention of two gifts. But what be 
those two gifts I pray you ? and by what words is the di- 
versity of those two gifts expressed P If the giving, as Smitli 
saith, be giving to death, then those two gifts declare that 
Christ died for us twice. And if aoe of Christ'^s gifts have 
livery and seisin, why hath not the other likewise? And 
when was then that livery and seisin given ? And if eating 
of Christ be believing, as you said even now, then livery 8 
and seisin is given when we first believe, whether it be in 
baptism, or at any other time. 

But what you mean by these words, that ** Christ gave in 
** his supper his body as really to be eaten of us, as he did to 
** be crucified for us,^ I understand not, except you would 
have Christ so really eaten of his Apostles at his supper 
with their teeth, as he was after crucified, whipped, and 
thrust to the heart with a spear. But was he not then so 
really and corporally crucified, that his body was rent and 

^ [** And here** " intended.'' This paragraph is one of the addi- 
tions to the edition of 1580.] 


torn in pieces? And was not he so crucified then, that he BOOK 
never was crucified after ? Was he not so slain then, that he 
never died no more ? And if he were so eaten at his supper, 
then did his Apostles tear his flesh at the supper, as the 
Jews did the day following. And then how could he now 
be eaten again ? Or how could he be crucified the day fol- 
lowing, if the night before he were after that sort eaten all 
up ? But, ** aptly*** say you, and " conveniently :^ Mary, sir, 
I thank you : but what is that ** aptly" and " conveniently,'' 
but spiritually, and by faith, (as you said before,) not grossly 
with the teeth, as he was crucified ? And so the manner was 
diverse, I grant, and the substance all one. 

But when Christ said. The bread which I will give is my The third. 
Jk9h, which I wiU give for the life of the world, if he had JluS{iS*not 
fulfilled this promise at his supper, as you say he did, then bis promise 
what needed he after to die that we might live, if he fulfilled iife^^\u 
his promise of life at his supper ? Why said the Prophets, j"?^**: 
that he should be wounded for our iniquities ^ and that by Isaiah liii. 
his wounds we should be healed, if we had life and were 
healed before he was wounded? Why doth the catholic 
faith teach us to believe, that we be redeemed by his blood Rom. iii. 
shedding, if he gave us life, which ^ is our redemption, 
the. night before he shed his blood? And why saith St. 
Paul that there is no remission without blood shedding f Heb. iz. 
yea why did he say, Absit mihi gioriariy nisi in cruc^, Gal. vi. 
God forbid that I should rejoice but in the cross onlyf 
Why did he not rather say, Absit mihi gioriari, nisi in 
Cana Domim f God forbid that I should rejoice , but in the 
Lords Supper f whereat, as you say^ the promise of life was 
fulfilled. This is godly doctrine for such men to make, as 
being ignorant in God^s word^ wander in phantasies of their 
own devices, and putantes se esse sapientes, stulHfocti sunt, Rom. i. 
But the true faithful believing man professeth, that Christ Heb. ii. 
by his death overcame him that was the author of death, 
and hath reconciled us to his Father, making us his children Epb. i. 
and heirs of his kingdom, that as many as believe in him, John iii. 
should not perish, but have life everlasting. Thus saith the 
true Christian man, putting his hope of life and eternal sal- 

VOL. III. 6 


BOO K vation neither in Christ''s Supper, although the same be to him 
a great confirmation of his faith, nor in any thing else, but 

Gal. n. gaith with St. Paul, Mihi abdt gUyriari^ nisi in cruce Do- 
mini nostri Jesu Christie God save me, thai I rejoice in no- 
things but in the cross of our Lord Jesu Christ, 

And when this true believing man cometh to the Lord^s 
Supper, and according to Chrisf s commandment receiveth 
the bread broken in remembrance that Christ^s body was 
broken for him upon the cross, and drinketh the wine in re- 
membrance of the effusion of Chrisf s blood for his sins, and 
unfeignedly believeth the same, to him the words of our Sa- 
MAtt zxri. viour Christ be effectuous and operatory, Take^ eat, this is 
Luke xxii. ^H f^y which is given JoT thee; and. Drink of this, for this 
is my blood whic/i is sited Jbr thee, to the remission of thy 
1 Cor.x. sins. And as St. Paul siuth, the bread unto him is the cofn^ 
munion of Chris fs body, and the wine, the communion of 
his blood. For the effect of his godly eating, as you truly 
herein gather of St. PauPs words, is the communication of 
Christ^s body and blood ; but to the faithful receiver, and 
not to the dumb creatures of bread and wine, under whose 
forms the catholic faith teacheth not the body and blood of 
Christ invisibly to be hidden. And as to the godly eater, 
who duly esteemeth Christ^s body, and hath it in such price 
and estimation as he ought to have« the effect is the commu- 
nication of Chrises body ; so to the wicked eater, the effect 
is damnation and everlasting woe. 
A warrmnt And now I am glad, that here yourself have found out a 9 
for apparel, ^n^rant for the apparel of bread and wine, that they shall 
not go altogether naked, and be nude and bare tokens, but 
have promises of effectual signification, which now you have 
espied out, both in the words of Christ and St. Paul. 
ChrUt's Now for the ambiguity of Christ''8 speeches, it is not 10 

8°ecchlw°* always true, that such speeches of Christ as might have am- 
were not biguity, the Evangelists either plainly or by circumstances 
oi^ned by open them. For Christ speaking so many things in para- 
UieETan- We^, similes, allegories, metaphors, and other tropes and 
figures, although sometime Christ himself and sometime the 
Evangelists open the meaning, yet, for the most part, the 


meaning is left to the judgment of the hearers, without any book 
declaration, as when Christ said, Gird your loins, and take ^' 
light candles in your hands: and when he said. No man Luke xU. 
thai setteth his hand to the plough, and looketh behind him, ^^^ ^^' 
is meet for the kingdom of God. And when he said, Except Jo}inm. 
the grain of wheat foiling upon the ground die, it re- 
maineth sole. And as St. Matthew saith, Christ spake not Matt. ziii. 
to the people without parables, that the Scriptures might be 
fulfilled, which prophesied of Christ, that he should open Psai. ixxvii. 
bis mouth in parables. 

And although some of his parables Christ opened to the 
people, some to his Apostles only, yet some he opened 
to neither of both, as can appear, but left them to be consi- 
dered by the discretion of the hearers. And when Christ 
called Herod a fox, Judas a devil, himself a door, a way, a 
vine, a well, neither he nor the Evangelists expounded these 
words, nor gave warning to the hearers that he spake in 
figures; for every man that had any manner of sense or rear- 
son, might weU perceive, that these sentences could not be 
true in plain form of words as they were spoken. For who 
is so ignorant, but he knoweth that a man is not a fox, a 
devil, a door, a way, a vine, a well. 

And so likewise when Christ brake the bread, and com- This is mp 
manded his disciples to eat it, and said. This is my body, ^^*J^^ ^^ 
and of the wine he said, Divide it among you, drink it, this speech. 
is my blood, no man that was there present was so fond, but 
he knew well, that the bread was not Chrisf s body nor the 
wine his blood : and therefore they might well know, that 
Christ called the bread his body, and the wine his blood, 
for some figure, similitude, and property of the bread and 
wine unto his flesh and blood : for as bread and wine be 
foods to nourish our bodies, so is the flesh and blood of our 
Saviour Christ, being annexed unto his Deity, the everlasting 
food of our souls. 

And although the Evangelists in that place do not fully 
express the words in this sense, yet adjoining the sixth 
chapter of John, speaking of the spiritual manducation of 
Christ, to the circumstances of the text in the three Evan- 


BOOK gelists, reciting Christ's last supper, the whole matter is 
fully gathered, as the old authors of the Church have de- 
clared. For doth not the circumstances of the text, both 
before and after the eating and drinking, declare that there 
is very bread and wine? Is not that which is broken and 
eaten, bread ? and that which is divided, drunken, and the 
fruit of the vine, is it not very wine ? And doth not the na- 
ture of sacraments require, that the sensible elements should 
remain in their proper nature, to signify an higher mystery 
and secret working of God inwardly, as the sensible elements 
be ministered outwardly ? And is not the visible and corporal 
feeding upon bread and wine a convenient and apt figure 
and similitude to put us in remembrance, and to admonish 
us, how we be fed invisibly and spiritually by the flesh and 
blood of Christ, God and man ? And is not the sacrament 
taken away, when the element is taken away ? Or can the 
accidents of the element be the sacrament of substantial 
feeding? or did ever any old author say, that the accidents 
were the sacramental signs without the substances ? 1 1 

But for the conclusion of your matter here, I would wish 
that you would once truly understand me. For I do not 
say, that Christy's body and blood be given to us in signifi- 
cation and not in deed, but I do as plainly speak as I can, 
that Chrises body and blood be given to us in deed, yet not 
corporally and carnally, but spiritually and effectually, as 
you confess yourself within twelve lines after. 

Tbb author uttereth a great many words, jfrom the eighth to 
the seventeenth chapter of the first book, declaring spiritual 
hunger and thirst, and the relieving of the same by spiritual 
feeding in Christ, and of Christ, as we constantly believe in him -, 
to the confirmation of which belief, the author would have the 
sacraments of baptism and of the body and blood of Christ, to 
be adminicles as it were, and that we by them be preached unto, 
as in water, bread and wine, and by them all our senses, as it 
were, spoken unto or properly touched ^ which matter in the gross, 
although there be some words by the way not tolerable, yet if, i 
those words set apart, the same were in the sum granted to be 


good teaching and wholesome exhortation, it containeth so no BOOK 
more but good matter not well applied. For the catholic Church, ^' 
that professeth the truth of the presence of Christ's body in the 
sacrament, would therewith use that declaration of hunger of 
Christ, and that spiritual refreshing in Christ, with the effect of 
Christ's passion and death, and the same to be the only mean 
of roan*s regeneration, and feeding also, with the differences of 
that feeding from bodily feeding for continuing this earthly life. 
But this toucheth not the principal point that should be entreated : 
whether Christ so ordered, to feed such as be r^nerate in him, 
to give to them in the sacrament the same his body that he gave 
to be crucified for us. The good man is fed by faith, and by the 
merits of Christ's passion, being the mean of the gift of that faith, 
and other gifts also, and by the suffering of the body of Christ, 
and shedding of his most precious blood on the altar of the cross : 
which work and passion of Christ is preached unto us by words 
and sacraments, and the same doctrine received of us by faith, 
and the eSkct of it also. And thus fieu' goeth the doctrine of this 

But the catholic teaching, by the Scriptures, goeth further, 
2 confessing Christ to feed such as be r^nerate in him, not only 
by his body and blood, but also with his body and blood delivered 
in this sacrament by him in deed to u», which the faithful, by his 
institution and commandment, receive with their faith and with 
their mouth also, and with those special dainties be fed specially 
at Christ's table. And so God doth not only preach in his sacra- 
ments, but also worketh in them, and with them, and in sensible 
things giveth celestial gifts, after the doctrine of each sacrament ^ 
as in iNiptism the Spirit of Christ, and in the sacrament of the 
altar the very body and blood of Christ, according to the plain 
sense of his words which he spake : This is my body, 8fc, And 
this is the catholic faith, against which, how the author will for- 
tify that he would have called catholic, and confute that he im- 
proveth, I intend hereafter more particularly to touch in discussion 
of that is said. 


I mistrust not the indifferency of the reader so much, but 
he can well perceive how simple and slender a rehearsal yon 
have made here of my eight annotations, and how little 



BOOK matter you have here to say against them, and how little 
'• your sayings require any answer. 

And because this may the more evidently appear to the 
reader, I shall rehearse my words here again. 

[See vol. ii. p. 297—308. " Although in this treaty'' 
— — " phantastical inventions.'' 

Although I need make no further answer, but the rehear- 
sal of my words, yet thus much will I answer, that where 
you say, that I speak some words by the way not tolerablcj i 
if there had been any such, they should not have failed to 
be expressed and named to their reproach, as other have 
been. Wherefore the reader may take a day with you be- 
fore he believe you, when you reprove me for using some 
intolerable words, and in conclusion name not one of them. 

And as for your catholic confession, that Christ doth in 
deed feed such as be regenerated in him, not only by his 2 
. body and blood, but also with his body and blood at his 
holy table, this I confess also: but that he feedeth Jews, 
Turks, and Infidels, if they receive the sacrament, or that 
he corporally feedeth our mouths with his flesh and blood, 
this neither I confess, nor any Scripture or ancient writer 
ever taught, but they teach that he is eaten spiritually in 
our hearts and by faith, not with mouth and teeth, except 
our hearts be in our mouths, and our faith in our teeth. 
Injury to Thus you have laboured sore in this matter, and spun a 
both sa- fair thread, and brought tliis your first book to a goodly 
conclusion. For you conclude your book with blasphemous 
words agfunst both the sacrament of baptism and of the 
Lord's Supper, niggardly pinching God's gifts, and di- 
minishing his liberal promises made unto us in them. For 
where Christ hath promised in both the sacraments to be 
assistant with us whole both in body and Spirit, (in the one 
to be our spiritual regeneration and apparel, and in the other 
to be our spiritual meat and drink,) you clip his liberal 
benefits in such sort, that in the one you make him to give 
but only his Spirit, and in the other but only his body. 
And yet you call your book An Explication and Assertion 
of the True Catholic Faith. 


Here you make an end of your first book, leaving unan- book 
swered the rest of my book. And yet forasmuch as Smith ^' 

busieth himself in this place with the answer thereof, he may ^'*- Su>itb. 
not pass unanswered again, where the matter requireth. 
The words of my book be these. 

[See vol. ii. p. 808—812. " But these things'" 

** as the Prophet saith.*" 

Here Smith findeth himself much irrieved at two false Some say 
reports, wherewith he saith that I untruly charge the pa- jg nataridly 
pists; one when I write, that some say that the very natural i^^ ^^^ "«- 
body of Christ is in the sacrament naturally and sensibly : 
which thing Smith utterly denieth any of them to say, and 
that I falsely lay this unto their charge. And moreover it 
is also very false, saith he, that you lay unto our charges 
that we say, that Chrisfs body is in the sacrament, as it 
was bom of the Virgin, and that it is broken and torn in 
pieces with our teeth. This also, Smith saith^ is a false 
report of me. 

But whether I have made any untrue report or no, let 
the books be judges. As touching the first, the Bishop 
writeth thus in his book of the DeviPs Sophistry, the xivth 
leaf. ** Good men were never offended with breaking of 
** the Host, which they daily saw, being also persuaded 
** Christ's body to be present in the sacrament naturally 
'^ and really.'' And in the xviiith leaf he saith these words: 
^ Christ, God and man, is naturally present in the sacnu 
'* menu" And in ten or twelve places of this his last book, 
he saith that Christ is present in the sacrament/ *^ naturally y"*^ 
*^ carparaUyy'" *^ sensibly^'" and " carnally^ as shall appear 
evidently in the reading thereof. So that I make no false re- 
port herein, who report none otherwise than the papists 
have written and published openly in their books. 

And it is not to be passed over, but worthy to be noted, A manifest 
how manifest falsehood is used in the printing of this Bi- tHJp^tiDff 
shop's book, in the ld6th leaf. For where the Bishop of the Bi- 
wrote, as I have two copies to show, one of his own hand, buok.' 
and another exhibited by him in open Court before the 

6 4 


BOOK King^s CommissioDers, that Christ^s body in the sacnunoit 
^' ift truly present, and therefore really present, oorporaUy 
also, and naturally : the printed book now set abroad hath 
changed this word ^ naturally,^ and in the stead thereof 
hath put these words, ^* but yet supematurally*,^ oorrupu 
ing and manifestly falafying the Bishop's book. 

Who was the author of this untrue act I cannot cer- 
tainly define, but if conjectures may have place, I think the 
Bishop himself would not command to alter the book in the 
printing, and then set it forth with this title, that it was 
the same book that was exhibited by his own hand for his 
defence to the King's Majesty's Commismoners at Lam- 

And I think the printer, being a Frenchman, would not 
have enterprised so false a deed of his own head, for the 
which he should have no thanks at aO, but be accused of 
the author as a fidsifier of his book. 

Now forasmuch as it is not like, that either the Bishop or 
the printer would play any such pranks^ it must then be 
some other, that was of counsel in the printing of the book, 
which being printed in France, whither you be now fled 
from your own native country, what person is more like to 
have done such a noble act than you ? who, being so fiill of 
craft and untruth in your own country, show yourself to be 
no changeling, wheresoever you become. And the rather it 
seemeth to me to be you than any other person, because that 
the book is altered in this word " naturally,^ upon which 
word standeth the reproof of your saying. For he saith, 
that Christ is in the sacrament naturally, and you deny that 
any man so saith, but that Christ is there supematurally. 
Who is more like therefore to change in his book ^ naturally,^ 

* [See below, book ii. where the passa^ is printed according to 
Cranmer*s reading. In Gardyner*s Expiicatwny 1551, leaf 136, it stands 
thus : '' it is truly present, and therefore really present, corporally also, 
** and but yet supematurally, with relation to the truth of the body 
** present, and not to the manner of presence, which is spiritual.'' But 
among the ** faults escaped in the printing'* is the direction, ** for m- 
^ pernaturaliy, read naturally/' It will be seen, that of these three 
readings, none but that which Cranmer asserts to be the true one, 
makes tolerable sense.] 



into ^^ supematurally,^ than you^ whom the matter toucheth^ BOOK 
and no man else ? But whether my conjectures be good in ^' 
this matter, I will not determine, but refer it to the judg* 
ment of the indifferent reader. 

Now as concerning the second untrue report, which ISomasajr 
should make of the papists, I have alleged the words ofig^^^^Q^ 
Berengarius' recantation, appointed by Pope Nicholas the torn with 
Second, and written De Consecrat. dist ii. which be these : sacrament 
that *^ not only the sacraments of bread and wine, but also 

the very flesh and blood of our Lord Jesu Christ, are 

setuibhf handled ^ the priest in the dUar, broken and 

torn with the teeth qf the faOkfvl peopled 

Thus the reader may see that I misreport not the papists, 
nor charge them with any other words, than they do write, 
that is to say, that the body of Christ is naturally and sen* 
sibly in the sacrament, and broken and torn in pieces with 
our teeth. 

But, saith Smithe, the meaning of Berengarius in his re* 
cantation was otherwise, that the forms only of bread and 
wine are brdcen and torn with our teeth, but Christ is 
received wholly without breaking of his body or tearing 
with our teeth. Well, whatsoever the meaning of Beren- 
garius was, his words be as I report, so that I make no 
fiedse report of the papists, nor untruly charge them with 
that they say not. But how should men know what the 
painsts mean, when they say one thing and mean another ? 
For Berengarius said, that not only the sacraments be 
broken and torn with our teeth, (and you say he meant 
ccmtrary, that only the sacraments be broken and torn with 
our teeth ;) Berengarius said, that also the very flesh and 
blood of Christ be broken and torn, (and you say he meant 
dean contrary, that the flesh and blood of Christ be not 
lNx>ken and torn :) well, then would I fain learn how it may 
be known what the papists mean, if they mean yea when 
they say nay, and mean nay when they say yea. 

And as for St. John Chrysostome, and other old authors, 
by whom you would excuse this manner of speech, they 
help you herein nothing at all. For not one of them speak 


BOOK after this sort, that Berengarius doth. For although they 
'• say sometimes, that we see Christ, touch him, and break 
him, (understanding that speech not of Christ himself, but 
of the sacraments which represent him,) yet they use no such 
form of speech, as was prescribed to Berengarius, that we 
see, feel, and break not only the sacraments, but also Christ 

And likewise of Loth, Abraham, Jacob, Josue, Marye 
Magdalene, and the Apostles, whom you bring forth in this 
matter, there is no such speech in the Scripture as Beren- 
garius useth. So that all these things be brought out in 
vain, having no colour to serve for your purpose, saving 
that something you must say to make out your book. 

And as for all the rest that you say in this process, con- 
cerning the presence of Christ visible and invisible, needeth 
no answer at all, because you prove nothing of all that you 
say in that matter ; which may therefore easily be denied, by 
as good authority as you affirm the same. And yet all the 
old writers that speak of the diversity of Christ's substantial 
presence and absence, declare this diversity to be in the di- 
veraty of his two natures, (that in the nature of his hu- 
manity he is gone hence, and present in the nature of his 
Divinity,) and not that in divers respects and qualities of 
one nature he is both present and absent ; which I have 
proved in my third book the fifth chapter. 

And forasmuch as you have not brought one author fcMr 
the proof of your saying, but your own bare words, nor 
have answered to the authorities alleged by me in the fore- 
said place of my third book, reason would that my proofs 
should stand and have place, until such time as you have 
proved your sayings, or brought some evident matter to 
improve mine. And this I trust shall suffice to any indif- 
ferent reader for the defence of my first book. 


Wherein I will keep this order. First, to cousider the third 
book, that speaketh against the faith of the real presence of 
Christ's most precious body and blood in the sacrament : then 


aguost the fourth, and so return to the second, speaking of tran- BOOK 
substantiation ; whereof to talk, the real presence not being dis- ^' 
cussed, were clearly superfluous. And finally, I will somewhat 
■ay of the fifth book also. 


But now to return to the conclusion of the Bishop^s book. Why tbe 
As it began with a maryellous sleight and subtlety, so doth book ^^^^ 
he conclude the same with a like notable subtlety, chanj^ng altered by 
the order of my books, not answering them in such order as 
I wrote them, nor as the nature of the things requireth. 
For seeing that by all men^s confessions there is bread and 
wine before the consecration, the first thing to be discussed 
in this matter is. Whether the same bread and wine remain 
still after the consecration, as sacraments of ChrisCs most 
precious body and blood. And next by order of nature 
and reason is to be discussed. Whether the body and blood 
of Christ represented by those sacraments, be present also 
with the said sacraments: and what manner of presence 
Christ hath, both in the sacraments and in them that receive 
the sacraments. 

But for what intent the Bishop changed this order, it is 
easy to perceive. For he saw the matter of transubstantia- 
tion so flat and plain against him, that it was hard for him 
to devise an answer in that matter, that should have any ap- 
pearance of truth, but all the world should evidently see 
him clearly overthrown at the first onset. Wherefore he 
thought, that although the matter of the real presence hath 
no truth in it at all, yet forasmuch as it seemed to him to 
have some more appearance of truth, than the matter of 
transubstantiation hath, he thought best to begin with that 
first, trusting so to juggle in the matter, and to dazzle the 
eyes of them that be simple and ignorant^ and spedally of 
such as were already persuaded in the matter, that they 
should not well see, nor perceive his legerdemain. And 
when he had won credit with them in that matter, by making 
them to wonder at his crafty juggling, then thought he, it 
should be a fit and meet time for him to bring in the matter 
of transubstantiation. For when men be amazed, they do 


BOOK wonder rather than judge : and when they be muffled and 
^' blindfolded^ they cannot find the right way, though they 
seek it never so fast, nor yet follow it, if it chance them to 
find it, but give up clearly thdr own judgment, and follow 
whomsoever they take to be their guide. And so shall 
they lightly follow me in this matter of transubstantiation, 
thou^t the Bishop, if I can first persuade them, and get 
their good wills in the real presence. This sldght and sub- 
tilty, thou mayest judge certainly, good reader, to be the 
cause, and none other, wherefore the order of my book is 
changed without ground or reason. 


( 98 ) 

7^ CorifutaHon qfthe Third Book. 


In the beginning of the third book, the author hath thought BOOK 
good to note certain difierences, which I will also particularly con- ^H* 
aider. It foUoweth in him thus : 

They teach, that Christ is in the bread and wine : but we The author. 

say, according to the truth, that he is in them that worthily eat 
*' and drink the bread and wine." 

1 Note here, reader, even in the entry of the comparison of these The an- 
diflferences, how untruly the true faith of the Church is reported, u^j[L« ,^ 
which doth not teach that Christ is in the bread and wine, which port 
was the doctrine of Luther; but the true faith is, that Christ's ^'^^^ 
most precious body and blood is, by the might of hb word and 
determination of his will which he declareth by his word, in his 

holy Supper present, under form of bread and wine : the sub- 
stance of which natures of bread and wine is converted into his 
most precious body and blood, as it is truly believed and taught in 
the catholic Church, of which teaching this author cannot be ig- 

2 Dorant. So as the author of this book reporteth an untruth wit- The teach- 
tiDgiy against his conscience, to say, they teach, (calling them pa- insrhitfauto 
fHSts,) that Christ is in the bread and wine ; but they agree in form day of the 

3 of teaching with that the Church of England teacheth at this <^&y S^^^f' 

in the distribution of the holy communion, in that it is there said agreeth ' 

the body and blood of Christ to be under the form of bread and Tl^ ^^} 
^ this author 

wine. And thus much serveth for declaration of the wrong and calletfa pa. 
untrue report of the faith of the catholic Church made of this au- P'^l'' ^ 
thor, in the setting forth of this diflerence on that part, which it 
pleaseth him to name papists. 

And now to speak of the other part of the difference on the au- Crafty con. 
thor*s side, when he would tell what he and his say, he conveyeth ][2i^|^^' 
m sense craftily in words to serve for a diflference : such as no this author. 
4catholk; man would deny. For every oitholic teacher granteth, ^'^^l 
that no roan can receive worthily Christ's precious body and blood Worthy re- 
in the sacrament, unless he hath by fiuth and charity Christ dwel- ^|^? ®' 
ling in him, for otherwise, such one as hath not Christ in him, precious 


BOOK receiveth Christ's body in the sacrament unworthily, to his con- 

III *' 

demnation. Christ cannot be received worthily, but into his own 

body and temple, which be ye, St. Paul saith, and yet, he that hath not 
[1580.] Christ's Spirit in him, is not his. As for calling it bread and 5 
I Cor. ri. wine, a catholic man forbeareth not that name, signifying what 
those creatures were before the consecration in substance. Where- 
fore appeareth, how the author of this book in the lieu and place 
of a difference, which he pretendeth he would show, bringeth in 
that under a '* but'* which every catholic man must needs confess, 
that Christ is in them who worthily eat and drink the sacrament 
of his body and blood, or the bread and wine, as this author 
AdiffereDce But and this author would have spoken plainly, and com|)ared 
"f**"*^tnf ^"'^y ^^ difference of the two teachings, he should in the second 6 
ries. part have said somewhat contrary to that the catholic Church 

[1580.] teacheth, which he doth not, and therefore, as he showeth un- 
truth in the first report, so he showeth a sleight and shift in the 
declaration of the second part, to say that repugneth not to the 
first matter, and ^that no catholic man will deny, considering 
the said two teachings be not of one matter, nor shoot not, as 7 
one might say, to one mark. For the first part is of the substance 
of the sacrament to be received, where it is truth, Christ to be 
present, God and man : the second part is of Christ's spiritual 
presence in the man that receiveth, which in deed must be in him 
before he receive the sacrament, or he cannot receive the sacra- 
ment worthily, as afore is said ; which two parts may stand well 
together, without any repugnancy, and so both the differences, 
thus taught, make but one catholic doctrine. Let us see what 
the author saith further. 


Now the crafts, wiles, and untruths of the first book being 
partly detected, after I have also answered to this book, I 
shall leave to the indifferent reader to judge whether it be 
of the same sort or no. But before I make further answer, 
I shall rehearse the words of mine own third book, which 
you attempt next, out of order, to impugn. My words be 

[See vol. ii. p. 855 — 856. " Now this matter'' 

" bread and wine."" 


Here it pleaseth you to pass over all the rest of my say- BOOK 
ingSy and to answer only to the difference between the pa- — 

fusts and the true catholic faith. 

Wherein first ye find fault that I have untruly reported The first 
the papistical faith, which you call the faith of the Church, md!^*"' 
which teacheth not, say you, that Christ is in the bread and 
wine, but under the forms of bread and wine. But to an- 
swer you I say, that the papists do teach that Christ is in Misreport 
the visible agns, and whether they list to call them bread J^j'JJfne 
and wine, or the forms of bread and wine, all is one to me, for the 
for the truth is, that he is neither corporally in the bread figures of 
and wine, nor in or under the forms and figures of them, ^^™* 
but is corporally in heaven, and sjnritually in his lively mem- 
bers which be his temples where he inhabiteth. And what 
untrue report is this, when I speak of bread and wine to 
the papsts, to speak of them in die same sense that the pa- 
pists mean, taking bread and wine for the forms and acci- 
dents of bread and wine ? 

And yourself also do teach, to understand by the bread 
and wine, not their substances, but accidents. And what 
have I offended then, in speaking to you after your own 
manner of speech, which yourself doth approve and allow by 
and by after, saying these words : *^ As for calling it bread 
*' and wine, a catholic man forbeareth not that name.^ If a 
catholic man forbeareth not that name, and catholic men be 
true men, then true men forbear not that name. And why 
then charge you me with untruth for using that name, 
which you use yourself, and affirm catholic men to use, but 
that you be given altogether to find faults rather in other, 
than to amend yout own, and to reprehend that in me, 
which you allow in yourself and other, and purposely will 
not understand my meaning, because ye would seek occasion 
to carp and controul ? 

For else what man is so simple that readeth my book, 
but he may know well, that I mean not to charge you for 
affirming of Christ to be in the very bread and wine ? For 
I know that you say, there is neither bread nor wine, 
although you say untruly therein, but yet forasmuch as the 


BOOK accidents of bread and wine you call bread and wine, and 
'^^* say that in them is Christ, therefore I report of you, that 

you say Christ is in the bread and wine, meaning, as you 
take bread and wine, the acddents thereof. 
Smytfa. Yet Doctor Smyth was a more indifferent reader of my 

book than you in this place, who understood my words as 
I meant, and as the papists use, and therefore would not 
purposely calumniate and reprehend that was well spoken. 
But there is no man so dull as he that will not understand. 
For men know that your wit is of as good capacity as Dr. 
Smyth^s is, if your will agreed to the same. 

But as for any untrue report made by me herein wittingly a 
against my conscience, as you untruly report of me, by that 
time that I have joined with you throughout your book, 
you shall right well perceive, I trust, that I have said no- 
thing wittingly, but that my conscience shall be able to de- 
fend at the great day, in the sight of the everliving Grod, 
and that I am able before any learned and indifferent 
judges, to justify by holy Scriptures and the ancient doc- 
tors of Christ^ s Church ; as I will appeal the consciences of 
all godly men, that be any thing indifferent and ready to 
yield to the truth, when they read and conader my book. 
The book And as concerning the form of doctrine used in this 3 
ofC<mimoB (;;}||||i|^ ^f England in the holy communion, that the body 

and blood of Christ be under the forms of bread and wine, 
when you shall show the place where this form of words is 
expressed, then shall you purge yourself of that which in 
the mean time I take to be a plain untruth. 
The seoond Now for the second part of the difference, you grant that 4 
^^^^ our doctrine is true, that Christ is in them that worthily 
eat and drink the bread and wine, and if it differ not from 
yours, then let it pass as a thing agreed upon by both parties. 
And yet if I would captiously gather of your words, I could 
as well prove by this second part, that very bread and wine 
be drunken after consecration, as you could prove by the 5 
first, that Christ is in the very bread and wine. And if a 
catholic man call that bread and wine, as you say in the second 
part of the dififerenoe, what meant you then in the first part 


of this difference to charge me with so heinous a crime, with a BOO K 
note to the reader, as though I had sinned against the Holy *^^' 
Ghoet, because I said that the papists do teach that Christ 
18 in the bread and wine ? Do not you a£Srm here yourself 
the same that I report, that the papists, which you call the 
catholics, do not forbear to call the sacrament, (wherein they 
put the real and corporal presence^) bread and wine ? Let 
the reader now judge, whether you be caught in your own 
snare or no. But such is the success of them that study to 
wrangle in words, without any respect of opening the truth. 

But letting that matter pass, yet we vary Ax>m you in this 
difference. For we say not, as you do, that the body of 
Christ is corporally, naturally, and carnally dther in the 
bread and wine, or forms of bread and wine, or in them that 
eat and drink thereof: but we say that he is corporally in 
heaven only, and spiritually in them that worthily eat and 
drink the bread and wine. But you make an article of the 
teiiih, which the old Church never believed nor heard of. 

And where you note in this second part of the difference 
6 a sl^ht and craft, as you note an untruth in the first, even 
as much craft is in the one as untruth in the other, being 
neither sleight nor untruth in neither of both. But this 
sleight, say you, I use, putting that for a difference wherein 
is no difference at all, but every catholic man must needs 
confess. Yet once again, there is no man so deaf as he that 
will not bear, nor so blind as he that will not see, nor so dull 
as he that will not understand. But if you had indifferent 
ears, indifferent eyes, and indifferent judgment, you might 
welt gather of my words a plain and manifest difference, 
although it be not in such terms as contenteth your mind. 
But because you shall see that I mean no sleight nor craft, 
but go plainly to work, I shall set out the difference truly 
as I meant, and in such your own terms as I trust to con- 
tent you^ if it be possible. Let this therefore be the dif- 

They say, that Christ is corporally under or in the forms The dif- 
of bread and wine : we say, that Christ is not there, neither [1580.] 
corporally nor spiritually, but in them that worthily eat and 




BOOK drink the bread and wine he is spiritually, and corporally in 
'"• heaven. 

Here I trust I have satisfied, as well the untrue report 
wittingly made, as you say, in the first part of the difference 
against my conscience, as the craft and slight used in the 
second part. But what be you eased now by this ? We say, 
as the Scripture teacheth, that Christ is corporally ascended 
into heaven, and nevertheless is so in them that worthily eat 
the bread and drink the wine given and distributed at his 
holy Supper, that he feedeth and nourisheth them with 
his flesh and blood unto eternal life. But we say not, as 
you do clearly without ground of Scripture, that he is cor- 
porally under the forms of bread and wine, where his pre- 
sence should be without any profit or commodity, ather to 
us, or to the bread and wine. 
Repag- And here, in this difference, it seemeth that you have 

either clearly forgotten, or negligently overshotten your- 
self, uttering that thing unawares, which is contrary to your 
whole book. For the first part, which is of the being of 
Christ in the sacramental bread and wine, is of the sub- 
stance of the sacrament to be received, say you, where it is 7 
true Christ to be present, God and man. The second part, 
say you, which is of the being of Christ in them that wor- 
thily eat and drink the bread and wine, is of Christ^s spi- 
ritual presence. Of which your words I see nothing to be 
gathered, but that as concerning his substantial presence, 
Christ is received into the sacramental bread and wine, and 
as for them that worthily receive the sacrament, he is in 
them none otherwise than after a spiritual presence: for 
else why should ye say that the second part is of Christ'^s 
spiritual presence, if it be as well of his corporal as spiritual 
presence.^ Wherefore by your own words, this difference 
should be understanded of two different beings of Christ, that 
in the sacrament he is by his substance, and in the worthy 
receivers spiritually, and not by his substance : for else the 
differences repugn not, as you object agtunst me. Where> 
fore mther you write one thing and mean another, or else, 
as you write of other, God so blindeth the adversaries of the 


truth, that in one place or other they confess the truth un- BOOK 
awares. Now follow my words in the second comparison. ' 

'* They say, that when any man eateth the bread and The second 
'* drinketh the cup, Christ goeth into his mouth or stomach ~™I*"- 
^' with the bread and wine, and no further. But we say, 
** that Christ is in the whole man, both in body and soul of 

him that worthily eateth the bread and drinketh the cup, 

and not in his mouth or stomach only.^ 


I In this comparisoD, the author termeth the true catholic teach- 
3 ing at his pleasure, to bring it in contempt. Which doing in 
rude speech would be called otherwise then I will term it. Truth 
it is, as St. Augustine saith, we receive in the sacrament the body 
of Christ with our mouth, and such speech other use, as a book 
set forth in the Archbishop of Canterbury's name, called a Cate* 
chism, willeth children to be taught, that they receive with their 
bodily mouth the body and blood of Christ -, which I allege, be- 
cause it shall appear it is a teaching set forth among us of late, as 
hath been also and is by the book of Common Prayer, being the 
most true catholic doctrine of the substance of the sacrament, in 
that it is there so catholicly spoken of, which book this author 
doth after specially allow, howsoever all the sum of his teaching 
doth improve it in that point. So much is he contrary to himself 
3 in this work, and here in this place, not caring what he sayeth, 
reporteth such a teaching in the first part of this difference, as I 
have not heard of before. There was never man of learning that 
I have read termed the matter so, that Christ goeth into the 
stomach of the man that receiveth, and no further. For that is A sect re- 
written contra Stercaranistas^ u nothing to this teaching, nor ^he jJ^'^JJ^**** 
speech of any gloss, if there be any such, were herein to be re- Steroora- 
garded. The catholic doctrine is, that by the holy conjunction in rj^-i 
the sacrament we be Joined to Christ really, because we receive 
ID the holy Supper the most precious substance of his glorious 
body, which is a flesh giving life : and that is not digested into 
our flesh, but worketh in us and attempereth by heavenly nurture 
our body and soul being partakers of his passion to be conform- 
able to bis will, and by such spiritual food to be made more spi- 
ritual. In the receiving of which food in the most blessed sacra- 



BOOK ment, our body and soul, in them that duly communicate, work 

Tf I 

together in due order, without other discussion of the mystery 
than God hath appointed, that is to say, the soul to believe as it 
is taught, and the body to do as God hath ordered, knowing that 
glorious flesh by our eating cannot be consumed or sufler, but to 
be most profitable unto such as do accustom worthily to receive 
the same. But to say, that the Church teacheth how we receive 4 
Christ at our mouth, and he goeth into our stomach and no fur- 
ther, is a report which by the just judgment of God is suflered to 
come out of the mouth of them that fight against the truth in this 
most high mystery. 

Now where this author in the second part by an adversative 5 
with a ** but" to make the comparison, teileth what he and his 
say, he teileth in effect that which every catholic man must needs 
and doth confess : for such as receive Christ's most precious 
body and blood in the sacrament worthily, they have Christ dwel- 
ling in them, who comforteth both body and soul, which the 
Church hath ever taught most plainly. So as this comparison of 
difference in his two parties, is made of one open untruth and a 6 
truth disguised, as though it were now first opened by this author 
and his, which manner of handling declareth what sleight and 
shift is used in the matter. 


In the first part of this comparison I go not about to i 
term the true catholic faith, for the first part in all the 
comparisons is the papistical faith, which I have termed 
none otherwise, than I learned of their own terming, and 
therefore if my terming please you not, as in deed it ought to 
please no man, yet lay the blame in them that were the 
authors and inventors of that terming, and not in me, that 
against them do use their own terms, terming the matter as 
they do themselves, because they should not find fault with 
me, as you do, that I term their teaching at my pleasure. 

And as for receiving of the body of Christ with our a 
mouths, truth it is that St. Augustine, Ambrose, Chrysos- 
tome, and other use such speeches, that we receive the body 
of Christ with our mouths, see him with our eyes, feel him 
with our hands, break him and tear him with our teeth, eat 


him and digest him, which speech I have also used in my BOOK 
Catechism, but yet these speeches must be understand ^^^' 
figuratively, (as I have declared in my fourth book the 
dghth chiqiter, and shall more fully declare hereafter,) for 
we do not these things to the very body of Christ, but to 
the bread whereby his body is represented. 

And yet the book of Common Prayer ndther useth any The book 
such speech, nor giveth any such doctrine, nor I in no point j'f^""*'" 
improve that godly book, nor vary from it. But yet glad 
I am to hear that the' said book liketh you so well, as no 
man can mislike it, that hath any godliness in him joined 
with knowledge. 
3 But now to come to the very matter of this article, it is That the 
marvel that you never read, that Christ goeth into the^"^^' 
mouth or stomach of the man that receiveth, and no fur-S^^ do 
ther, being a lawyer, and seeing that it is written in the than the 
gloss of the law, De Consecrai. dist. ii. " Tribus gradibus,'' ^^^ ^ 
in these words. ^^ It is certain that as soon as the forms be 
*^ torn with the teeth, so soon the body of Christ is gone up 
^' into heaven.*" And in the chapter, ^^ Non iste,^ is another 
gloss to the same purpose. And if you had read Thomas Thomas, 
de Aquino and Bonaventure, (great clerks and holy suntsBonaFen- 
of the Pope^s own making,) with other school authors, then^'"^* 
should you have known what the papists do say in this 
matter*. For some say, that the body of Christ remaineth 
so long as the form and fashion of bread remaineth, although 
it be in a dog, mouse, or in the jakes. And some say, it is 
not in the mouse nor jakes, but remaineth only in the per- 
son that eateth it, until it be digested in the stomach, and 
the form of bread be gone. Some say, it remaineth no 
longer than the sacrament is in the eating, and may be felt, 
seen, and tasted in the mouth. 

And this, beades Hugo, saith Pope Innocentius himself, Hogo. 
who was the best learned and chief doer in this matter of ^„g m/ 
all the other popes. Read you never none of these authors ? 
and yet take upon you the full knowledge of this matter ? 
Will you take upon you to defend the papists, and know 

« Read Smith, fol. 64. [1580.] 



BOOK not what they say? Or do you know it, and now be ashamed 
^^' of it, and for shame will deny it ? 

And sedng that you teach, that we reonve the body of 
Christ with our mouths, I pray you, tell whether it go any 
further than the mouth or no, and how fiur it goeth, that 
I may know your judgment herein : and so shall you be 
charged no further than with your own saying, and the 
reader shall perceive what excellent knowledge you have in 
this matter. 

And where you say, that to teach that we recetve Christ at 4 
our mouth, and he goeth into our stomadi, and no further, 
Cometh out of the mouth of them that fight against the 
truth in this most high mystery : here, like unto Cayphas, 
you prophesy the truth unawares. For this doctrine com- 
eth out of the mouth of none but of the pajHsts, which fight 
against the holy catholic truth of the ancient fathers, saying 
that Christ tarrieth no longer than the proper forms of bread 
and wine remain, which cannot remain after perfect digestion 
in the stomach. 

And I say not that the Church teacheth so, as you feign 

me to say, but that the papists say so. Wherefore I would 

wish you to report my words as I say, and not as you 

imag^ me to say, lest you hear again, as you have heard 

heretofore, of your wonderful learning and pactioe in the 

DeviTs sophistry. 

The second Now as Concerning the second part of this comparison, 5 

^'^ here you grant, that my saying therein is true, and that 

every catholic manmust needs and doth confess the same. 

By which your saying you must condemn almost all the 

school authors and lawyers, that have written of this matter, 

iDDocen- with Innocent the Third also, as men not catholic, because 

^^ they teach that Christ goeth no further, ncNr tarrieth no 

longer, than the forms of bread and wine go and remain in 

th&T proper kind. 

And yet now your doctrine, as far as I can gather of your 
obscure words, is this, that Christ is recdved at the mouth 
with the forms of bread and wine, and goeth with them into 
the stomach. And although they go no further in thdr 


proper kinds, yet there Christ leaveth them, and goeth BOOK 
himself further into every part of the man^s body, and into ^^^' 
his soul also: which your saying seemeth to me very 
strange. For I have many times heard, that a soul hath 
gone into a body, but I never heard that a body went into 
a soul. But I ween of all the papists, you shall be alone 
in this matter, and find never a fellow to say as you do. 

And of these things which I have here spoken I may 
conclude, that this comparison of difference is not made of 
an open untruth and a truth disguised, except you will con- 
fess the papistical doctrine to be an open untruth. 

Now the words of my third comparison be these. 

** They say, that Christ is recaved in the mouth, and The tbird 
** entereth in with the bread and wine. We say, that he is^"/**"" 
'^ received in the heart, and entereth in by faith.*" 


t Hbrb is a pretty sleight id this comparison, where both parts 
of the comparison may be understanded on both sides, and there- 
fore here is by the author in this comparison no issue joined : 
for the worthy reoeiFing of Christ's body and blood in the sacra- 
ment is both with mouth and heart, both in fact and faith. 
After which sort St. Peter in the last supper received Christ's 
body, whereas in the same supper Judas received it with mouth 
4 and in ^t only, whereof St. Augustine speaketh in this wise^: 
3 " Non dicunt ista, nisi qui de mensa Domini vitam sumunt, sicut 
** Petnis, non judicium sicut Judas, et tamen ipsa utrique fuit una, 
*' sed non utrique valuit ad unum, quia ipsi non erant unum :** 
Which words be thus much to say : " That they say not so as 
was before entreated, but such as receive life of our Lord's 
table, as Peter did, not judgment, as Judas, and yet the table 
'* was all one to them both, but it was not to all one effect in 
'* them both, because they were not one." Here St. Augustine 
noteth the difiference in the receiver, not in the sacrament re- 
ceived, which being received with the mouth only, and Christ en- 
tering in mystery only^ doth not sanctify us, but is the stone of 
stumbling, and our judgment and condemnation -, but if he be re- 

^ Augustinas, Contra Lilera$ Petil. lib. ii. cap. 47. 

H 4 


BOOK ceived vrith mouth and body, with heart and £uth. to sudi he 

III ^ 

bringcth life and nourishment. Wherefore in this comparison. 

the author hath made no di£krenoe, but with divers terms^ the 
catholic teaching is divided into two members with a '^ but^** 
feshioned nevertheless in another phrase of speech than the 
Church hath used» which is so common in thb author, that I will 
not hereafter note it any more for a fisuilt. Let us go forther. 


Whether There is nothing in this comparison worthy to be an-i 
^*'"**^. swered^ for if you can find no difiperence therdn, yet every 
the ffioath. indifferent reader can. For when I report the pa{N8ts^ 
teaching, that they say, Christ is received in the mouth, 
and entereth in with the bread and wine, and for an adver- 
sative thereto I say, that we, which follow the Scripture 
and ancient writers, say, that he is received in the heart, 
and entereth in by faith, every indifferent reader under- 
standeth this adversative upon our side, that we say Christ 
is not received in the mouth, but in the heart, specially 
seeing that in my fourth book, the second and third chapter, 
I make purposely a process thereof, to prove that Christ is 
not eaten with mouths and teeth. And yet to eschew all 
such occasions of sleight as you impute unto me in this com- 
parison, to make the comparison more full and plain, let this 
be the comparison. 
Tliedjf. They say, that Christ is recdved with the mouth, and 

nTso^ entereth in with the bread and wine. We say, that he is not a 
received with the mouth, but with the heart, and entereth 
in by fiuth. And now I trust there is no sleight in this 
comparison, nor both the parts may not be understand on 
both ades, as you say they might before. 

And as for St. Augustine serveth nothing for your pur- 3 
pose, to prove that Chrises body is eaten with the mouth. 
For he speaketh not one word in the place by you alleged ^, 
neither of our mouths, nor of Christ'^s body. But it seemeth 
you have so fervent a desire to be doing in this matter, that 
you be like to certain men, which have such a fond delight 

' Augustinus; Omira LUeras Petil. lib. ii. cap. 47. 


in shooting, that so they be doing, they pass not how far BOOK 
they shoot from the mark. For in this place of St. Au-_1_ 


gustine against the Donatists, he shooteth not at this butt, 
whether Christ^s very natural body be received with our 
mouths, but whether the sacraments in general be received 
both of good and evil. And there he declareth, that it is 
all one water, whether Symon Peter or Symon Magus be 
christened in it : all one table of the Lord, and one cup, 
whether Peter sup thereat or Judas : all one oil, whether 
David or Saule were anointed therewith. Wherefore he 
concludeth thus : ^' Memento ergo sacramentis Dei nihil 
^ obesse mores malorum hominum, quo ilia vel omnino non 
*^ sint, vel minus sancta sint, sed ip^s malis hominibus, ut 
^^ haec habeant ad testimonium damnationis, non ad adjuto- 
^* torium sanitatis^i.^ *^ Remember therefore,^ saith St. Au- 
gustine, *^ that the manners of evil men hinder not the sa- 
craments of Grod, that either they utterly be not, or be 
less holy, but they hinder the evil men themselves, so 
^ that they have the sacraments to witness of their damna- 
^^ tion, not to help of their salvation.^ And all the process 
spoken there by St. Augustine is spoken chiefly of baptism 
against the Donatists, which said, that the baptism was 
naught, if either the minister or the receiver were naught. 
Against whom St. Augustine concludeth, that the sacra- 
ments of themselves be holy, and be all one, whether the 
minister or receiver be good or bad. But this place of 
St. Augustine proveth as well your purpose, that Christ^s 
body is received by the mouth, as it proveth that PauPs 
steeple is higher than the Cross in the Cheape. For he 
speaketh not one word of none of them all. And therefore 
in this place, where you pretend to shoot at the butt, you 
shoot quite at rovers, and clean from the mark. 
4 And yet if Judas received Christ with the bread, as you 
say, and the Devil entered with the bread, as St. John John xiii. 
saith, then was the Devil and Christ in Judas both at once : 
and then how they agreed I marvel. For St. Paul saith, i Cor. x. 
that Christ and Belyall cannot agree. Oh what a wit 

^ AugU8tinus> Centra Literas PetiL lib. ii. cap. 47. 


BOOK he had need to have, that will wittingly maintain an open 
*'^' error directly against God and his word, and all holy an- 

aent writers. 

Now followeth the fourth comparison in my book. 
Tbe fouiHi << They say, that Christ is really in the sacramental bread, 
compan- <, being reserved an whole year^ or so l<Mig as the form of 
'* bread remainetb : but after the receiving thereof, he flieth 
^^ up, say they, from the recover unto heaven, as soon as 
^^ the bread is chawed in the mouth, or changed in the 
^^ stomach. But we say, that Christ remaineth in the man 
*^ that worthily rec^veth it, so long as the man remaineth a 
^' member of Christ.^ 


This comparison is like the other before, whereof the first part t 

is garnished and embossed with untruth, and the second part is 

that the Church hath ever taught most truly, and that all must 

believe, and therefore that piece hath no untruth in the matter, 

but in the manner only, being spoken as though it differed from 

the continual open teaching of the Church, which is not so ; 

wherefore in the manner of it in utterance signifieth an untruth, 

Pognatcam which in the matter itself is nevertheless most true. For un- 3 

aliis pa- doubtediy, Christ remaineth in the man that worthily receiveth 

[1580.] ^he sacrament, so long as that man remaineth a member of 

Christ. In this first part, there is a iault in the matter of the 

speech, for explication whereof I will examine it particularly. 

This author saith, '* They say, that Christ is really in the sacramen- 

" tal bread, being reserved an whole year,*' &c. The Church giving 3 

fidth to Christ*s word, when he said. This is my body, Ssc, teacheth 

tlie body of Christ to be present in the sacrament under the form 

of bread : unto which words when we put the word '* really,"* it 

serveth only to express that truth in open words, which was afore 

Christ is the to be understanded in sense. For in Christ, who was the body 4 

body of all ^f ^j ^^ shadows and figures of the law, and who did exhibit and 


[1^80.] give in his sacraments of the new law the things promised in his 

sacraments of the old law, we must understand his words in the 

institution of his sacraments without figure in the substance of 

the celestial thing of them, and therefore when he ordered his 

most precious body and blood to be eaten and drunken of us 


under the forms of bread and wine, we profess and betieve, that BOOK 
truly be gave us his most precious body in the sacrament for a ^^^* 
cel e s t ial food, to comfort and strengthen us in this miserable 
life. And for certainty of the truth of his work therein, we pro- 
less he giveth us his body really, that is to say, in deed his body Really, that 
the thing itself: which is the heavenly part of the sacrament, |.'''JVi^^' 
called Eucharistia^ having the visible form of bread and wine, and 
containing invisibly the very body and blood of our Saviour Christ, 
which was not wont to be reserved otherwise, but to be ready for 
such as in danger of death call for it, and the same, so long as it 
may be used, is still the same sacrament, which only time altereth 

5 not, whereof Cyrill^ wrote to this sense many hundred years past, 
and Hesychius^also, and what ought to be done, when by negli- 
gence of the minister it were reserved over long. Mary, where it 
liketh the author of these differences, to say the Church teacheth 

6 Christ to fly up from the receiver unto heaven, so soon as the 
bread is chawed in the mouth, or changed in the stomach, this 
manner of speech implieth as though Christ left the seat of his 
mi^esty in heaven to be present in the sacrament, which is most 
untrue. The Church acknowledgeth, believeth, and teacheth Christ 
truly, that Christ sitteth on the right hand of his Father in glory, ^„t1n^Sie 
from whence he shall come to judge the world, and also teacheth sacrament, 
Christ's very body and blood, and Christ himself, God and roan, ^^^^^^^ 
to be present in the sacrament, not by shifting of place, but by present in 
the determination of his will, declared in Scriptures, and believed r?^8o1 
of the catholic Church, which articles be to reason impossible, 

but possible to God omnipotent. So as being taught of his will, 
we should humblv submit all our senses and reason to the faith 


of his will and work declared in his Scriptures. 

7 In the belief of which mysteries is great benefit and consola- 
tion, and in the unreverent search and curious discussion of them, 

8 presumptuous boldness and wicked temerity. I know by faith 
Christ to be present, but the particularity how he is present, more 
than I am assured he is truly present, and therefore in substance 

9 present, I cannot tell ; but present he is, and truly is, and verily is, Tmly, 
and so in deed, that b to say, really is, and unfeignedly is, and^^jjj" ' 
therefore in substance is, and, as we term it, substantially is pre- [is^-l 

10 sent. For all these adverbs, *' really,** *' substantially,** with^the rest. 

* Cyrillas, Ad Cahtyrium Episcopum, 
^ Ueaychins, In Ltvit, lib. iii. cap. 8. 


BOOK be contained in the one word ** is,'* spoken out of his month that 
III ■ 

' speaketh as he meaneth, truly and certainly as Christ did, sayings 

JTui is wty bodff that ihaU ie hetraifedfar fou $ who then carried ii 
himself in his hands after a certain manner, as St. Augustine 
saiths, whidi never man besides him could do, who in that his 
last supper gave himself to be eaten without consuming: the ways 
and means whereof no man can tell, but humble spirits, as they 
be taught, must constantly believe it, without thinking or talking 
of flying or stying of Christ again unto heaven, where Christ is in 
the glory of his Father continually, and is nevertheless, because 
he will so be, present in the sacrament, whole God and man, and 
dwelleth corporally in him that reoeiveth him worthily. 

Wherefore, reader, when thou shalt again well consider this is 
comparison, thou shalt find true, how the first part is disguised 
What is with untrue report of the common teaching of the Church, how- 
bUod irion ^^^^^ some gloss, or some private teacher might speak of it, and 
may not be the second part, such as hath been ever so taught. One thing 1 13 
tbelteacb- ^^^^^ S^^ ^ admonish the reader, that whatsoever I affirm or 
ing of the precisely deny, I mean within the compass of my knowledge, 
yct^rnever ^^^^ ^ speak not because I am in any suspicion or doubt of that 
read of I affirm or deny, but to avoid the temerity of denying as never, or 
Ith&Uk man inning as ever, which be extremities ; and I mean also of pub- 
dangerous lie doctrine by consent received, so taught and believed, and not 
deny ex- ' ^^ ^^T ^°^ '^^"^ might blindly write as uttering his fancy, as 
tremities, this author doth for his pleasure. There foUoweth in the author 

tme, for it r^ ^ z. 

makethhim Lanterourtf. 

suspect of Because this comparison, as you say, is like the other, i 

tion. therefore it is fully answered before in the other comparisons. 

^^ '^ And here yet again it is to be noted, that in all these four 

Christ tar- comparisons you approve and allow for truth, the second 

S«re^* part of the comparison which we say. 

ceiverofthe And where you say, that Christ undoubtedly remaineth a 
* in the man that worthily reoeiveth the sacrament, so long as 
that man remaineth a member of Christ : how agreeth this 
with the common saying of all the papists, that Christ is 
contained under the forms of bread and wine, and remain- 
eth there no longer than the forms of bread and wine re- 

s Augustin. Ptal, S3. 


nuuD? Wherefore in this point all the whole rout of the BOOK 
papsts will condemn for untruth, that which you so ^"- 
stantly affirm to be undoubtedly true. 

3 And when the papists teach that the body of Christ is 
really in the sacrament under the form of bread, they speak 
not this, giving faith to Chrisf s words, as you say they do, 
for Christ never spake any such words. And as for this 
saying of Christ, 7%m is my body^ it is a figurative speech, 
called metonymia^ when one thing is called by the name of Metony- 
another which it signifieth, and it hath no such sense as you ^^ 
pretend. For there is a great diversity between these two 
sayings, This is my body^ and. The body of Christ is really 

in the sacrament under the form of bread. But the papists ' 
have set Christ^s words upon the tenters, and stretched them 
out so far, that they make his words to signify as pleaseth 
them, not as he meant. 

4 And this is a marvellous doctrine of you, to say that 
Christ was the body of all the shadows and figures of theTbefatbere 
law, and did exhibit and give in his sacraments of the new j°^,!^ °**^ 
law the things promised in the sacraments of the old law. ceiyed the 
For he is the body of all the figures, as well of the new law fnThJSr wS* 
as of the old, and did exhibit and sive his promises in the cramcnts 

that we do 

sacraments of the old law, as he doth now in the sacraments in oars. 
of the new law. And we must understand the words spoken 
in the institution of the sacraments in both the laws, figura- 
tively, as concerning the sacraments, and without figure, as 
concerning the things by them promised, signified, and ex- 
hibited. As in drcumcision was given the same thing 
to them, that is given to us in baptism, and the same by 
manna, that we have at the Lord's table. Only this difier- 
ence was between them and us, that our redemption by 
Chrisf 8 death and passion was then only promised, and now 
it is performed and past And as their sacraments were 
figures of his death to come, so be ours figures of the same 
now past and gone. And yet it was all but one Christ to 
them and to us, who gave life, comfort, and strength to them 
by his death to come, and giveth the same to us by his 
death passed. 


BOOK -^d he was in their sacraments spiritually and effectually 
^^* present^ and for so much truly and really present, that is to 
say, in deed, before he was bom, no less than he is now in 
our sacraments present, after his death and ascension into 
heaven. But as for carnal presence, he was to them not yet 
come ; and to us he is come, and gone again unto his Father, 
from whom he came. 
Rcflerra- And as for the reservaUon of the sacrament, neither Cyrill 5 
Cr^ll °^^ Hesychius speak any word what ought to be done with 
Hettcbius. the sacrament, when by negligence of the minister it were 
reserved over long, but Hesychius showeth plainly that no- 
thing ought to be reserved, but to be burned whatsoever re- 

And as for the flying of Christ up into heaven so soon as 6 
the bread is chawed in the mouth, or changed in the 
stomach, I say not that the Church teacheth so, but that 
papists say so, which forasmuch as you say, that it liketh 
me to report this most untruly, read what the gloss sayeth 
upon the chapter, ^ Tribus gradibus^.'^ De Omsecrat, dist. 
ii. and there you shall find these words. *^ Certum est, 
quod species quam cito dentibus teruntur, tam dto in 
coelum rapitur corpus Christi.^ And if this gloss be false 
and erroneous, why was it published and set out by the au- 
thority of the papists? Why hath it been written and 
printed in so many countries and so many years, vdthout 
reproof, or any fault found therdn by any man ? 

But here many wise men learn to be ware of your doctrine. 

For you reprove those papists which have written of this 

matter four or five hundred years past, and do invent a new 

device of your own. And therefore wise men when they see 

you teach one doctrine, and the papists that were before 

your time teach another, they will believe none of you all. 

The benefit And where you say, that in the belief of this mystery is 7 

1^^^*^*^ great benefit and consolation, what benefit, I beseech you, 

crament is it to US, if Christ be really and corporally in the forms of 

bread and wine a month or two, or a year or two ? And if 

we receive him really and corporally with the bread and 

^ De Comecrat, dist. ii. *' Tribus gradibus." 



wine into our mouths or stomachs, and no further, and there BOO K 

be tarrieth not in that sort, but departeth away from us by _1— 

and by again ; what great benefit or comfort, I pray you, is 
such a corporal presence unto us? And yet this is the 
teaching of all the papists, although you seem to vary from 
them in this last point of Chrisf s sudden departure. But 
when the matter shall be throughly answered, I ween you 
will agree with the rest of the papists, that as concerning 
his carnal presence, Christ departeth from us, at the least 
when the forms of bread and wine be altered in the stomach. 
And then I pray you, declare what comfort and benefit we 
have by this carnal presence, which by and by is absent, 
and tarrieth not with us ? Such comfort have weak and sick 
consciences at the papists^ hands, to tell them that Christ 
was with them, and now is gone from them. 

Nevertheless in the belief of this mystery, if it be under- 
stand according to Grod^s word, is great benefit and consola* 
Uon ; but to believe your addition unto God^s word is nei- 
ther benefit nor wisdom. 
8 And I pray you, show in what place the Scripture saith, 
that under the forms of bread and wine is the body of Christ 
really, corporally, and naturally, or else acknowledge them 
to be your own addition besides God^s word, and your stout 
assertion herein to be but presumptuous boldness and wicked 
temerity, affirming so arrogantly that thing, for the which 
you have none authority of Code's word. 

And where you seem to be offended with the discussion 
of this matter, what hurt, I pray you, can gold catch in the 
fire, or truth with discussing? Lies only fear discusang. 
The Devil hateth the light, because he hath been a liar 
from the beginning, and is loth that his lies should come 
to light and trial. And all hypocrites and papists be of a 
like sort, afraid that their doctrines should come to discus- 
sing, whereby it may evidently appear, that they be endued 
with the spirit of error and lying. If the papists had not 
feared, that their doctrines should have been espied, and 
their opinions have come to discussing, the Scriptures of 
God had been in the vulgar and English tongue many 


BOOK years ago. But, Gkid be praised, at the length your doctrine 
^^^' is come to discusdng, so that you cannot so craftily walk in 

a doud, but the light of God'*s word will always show where 
John ▼. 7<^ be* Our Saviour Christ, in the fifth of John, willeth 

us to search the Scriptures, and to try out the truth by 

them. And shall not we then with humble reverence search 

the truth in Chrisfs sacraments? 
The man- And if you cannot tell how Christ is present, why do you 9 
ner of pre- ij^^^ g^^y^ ^^^ y^^ '^ substantially present, corporally present, 

naturally and carnally present ? 

And how sure be you that Christ is in substance (M'e- 10 
sent, because he is truly present ? Are you assured that this 
your doctrine agreeth with God^s word ? Doth not God^s 
word teach a true presence of Christ in spirit, where he is 
not present in his corporal substance ? As when he saith. 
Matt, xriii. Where two or three be gathered together in my name^ there 
Matt, nit am I in the midst of them. And also when he saith, / ehaU 
be wUh you unto the end of the world. Was it not a true 
presence that Christ in these places promised ? And yet can 
you not of this true presence gather such a corporal pre- 
sence of the substance of Christ^s manhood, as you unlearn- 
edly, contrary to the Scriptures, go about to prove in the 
sacrament. For when Christ said. This is my body, it was 
bread which he called hb body in a figurative speech, as all 11 
the old authors teach, and as I have proved in my third 
book, the eighth and eleventh chapter. And the manner 
how Christ carried himself in his own hands, St. Augustine 
declareth it to be figuratively. 
The com- And because you can find no repugnance between theia 
^ two paru of this a>mpari«,n, to make them more plain, I 
shall fill them up with more words, as I did the other com- 
parisons before. This therefore shall be the comparison. 

They say, that Christ is really and corporally in the sa- 
cramental bread being reserved, so long as the form of bread 
remaineth, although it be an whole year and more: but 
after the receiving thereof, he flieth up from the receiver 
into heaven, as soon as the bread is chawed in the mouth or 
digested in the stomach. But we say, that after what 


manner Christ is received of us, in the same wise he re- BOOK 
maineth in us, so long as we remain the members of Christ. 

And where in the end you admonish the reader, that 
whatsoever you affirm or precisely deny, you mean within 
the compass of your knowledge, and of public doctrine, and 
of doctrine by consent received : what do you here else, 
but devise certidn sleights and prepare for yourself priv}- 
holes to start out at, whensoever you should be taken with a 
manifest lie ? So that you should not be compelled to abide 
by any word that you say. For by these crafty sleights 
and shifts, of the compass of your knowledge, and of pub- 
lic doctrine, and of doctrine by common consent received, 
you mean to say ever what you list. And though never so 
manifest a lie or untruth be laid to your charge, yet shall 
no man never be able to prove it so manifestly against you, 
but you shall have one of these three shifts to flee out at for 
your defence. 

Now foUoweth in my book the fifth comparison. 

'^ They say, that in the sacrament, the corporal members The fifth 
** of Christ be not distant in place one from another, but compari- 

* ' SOD. 

'^ that wheresoever the head is, there be the feet, and where- 
^ soever the arms be^ there be the legs; so that in every 
part of the bread and wine is altogether whole head, whole 
feet, whole flesh, whole blood, whole heart, whole lungs, 
whole breast, whole back, and altogether whole, confused 
^* and mixed without distinction or diversity. O, what a 
'* foolish and an abominable invention is this, to make of 
the most pure and perfect body of Christ such a confused 
and monstrous body ! And yet can the papists imagine 
nothing so foolish, but all Christian people must receive 
*' the same as an oracle of God, and as a most certain 
** article of thdr faith, without whispering to the contrary .** 


This is manrellous rhetoric, and such as the author hath 

1 overseen himself in the utterance of it, and confesseth himself 

prettily abused, to the latter end of his years to have believed 

that he now calleth so foolish. But to the purpose. In the 

VOL. III. 1 




BOO K Book of Common Prayer, now at this time set forth in this realm, 
^^'' it is ordered to teach the people, that in each part of the bread * 
consecrate, broken, is the whole body of our Saviour Christ*, 
which is agreeable to the catholic doctrine : upon occasion hereof, 
it liketh this author to multiply language by enumeration of parts ; 
and because reason without faith directeth the bodily eye to so 
little a visible quantity in the host, this author beareth in hand 
the catholic Church to say and teach all that fond reason deviseth, 3 
whereas the Church, in the doctrine of this mystery, denieth all that 
reason without faith deviseth ; and therefore, when we acknowledge 
by faith Christ's body present, although we say it is present, truly, 4 
really, substantially, yet we say our senses be not privy to that pre- 
sence, ne the manner of it, but by instruction of faith; and therefore 
we say, Christ's body to be not locally present, not by manner of 
quantity, but invisibly, and in no sensible manner, but marvel- 
lously in a sacrament and mystery truly, and in such a spiritual 
manner as we cannot define and determine ; and yet by faith we 5 
know his body present, the parts of which be ib themselves dis- 
stinct one from another, in their own substance, but not by cir* 
cumscription of several places, to be comprehended of our capa- 
city ; which parts we cannot by demonstration place, nor by ima- 
gination displace, diminish, alter, or confound, as this auUior for 
his pleasure reporteth 5 who writeth monstrously in so high a mys- 
Pagnatcnm tery, and impudently beareth in hand the catholic Church to teach 6 
^^. P^* that he listeth to bear in hand may by wanton reason be deduced 
[1580.] of their teaching; whereas all true Christian men believe simply 
Christ's words, and trouble not their heads with such conse* 
quences as seem to strive with reasqn. This is in the author no 
whispering, but plainly railing; wherein, if he had remembered 
himself well, he would not have spoken of all Christian men in 

' [Tbe passaee alluded to is in one of the concludiog rubrics of Edward 
VI. 8 first Bool of Common Prayer, and is as follows : " For avoiding 
*' of ail matters and occasion of dissension, it is meet that the bread 
** prepared for the Communion be made through all this realm after 
" one sort and fashion : that is to say, unleaven^ and round as it was 
^* afore, but without all manner of print, and something more larger aud 
*' thicker than it was, so that it may be aptly divided in divers pieces : 
*' and every one shall be divided in two pieces at the least, or more, by 
** the discretion of the minister, and so distributed. And men must not 
'' think less to be received in part than in the whole, but in each of 
** them the whole body of our Saviour Jesu Christ." 7^ Book of the 
Common Prayery 1549. fol. 131.] 


the receipt of that he intendeth to disprove. And if he would BOOK 
aaj he spake it by an irony or scorn, yet it implieth, that all had ' 

receired that he thus mocketh ; which, after the sort he writeth, 
was never devised by papist or other to be so taught, otherwise 
than as this author might read it as an idle argument^ to show 
absurdity in reason. 

7 For in God*s works, as the sacraments be, we must think all 
aeemliness in deed without deformity, even as we believe all God*8 
judgments just and true, although reason conclude in them evi- 
dent iniquity. Man's reason, when it seemeth most gallant, is What is re. 
lull of spots and folly: God's works be all seemliness without con- ^i!^*^^^'^' 
fusion, monster, or any such absurdity as this author supposeth ; men hath 
although I cannot in the sacrament, with the eye of my reason, ^"^IP ^ 
locally distinct Christ's head from his foot, his legs from his arm. token iu 
And where in the Book of Common Prayer it is truly said, in each f^^ -i 
part of the bread consecrate broken to be Christ's whole body, if 

one of curiosity would question with me, and I of folly would an- it is a folly 
swer him, first. Where is Christ*s head ? I should say. Here, point- ^ answer a 
ing with my finger, he would think it first a little head. Then he mander. 
would ask. Where is his foot } and I should say, There, and point l^S^-] 
in the same place again, for there is none other left. If he re- 
plied that I pointed before the same for the head, might not the 
third a catholic man that stood by, trow you, wisely call us both 
mad, to go about to discuss that we must grant we see not; and 
when by faith we know only the being present of Christ's most 
precious body, then by blind reason to discuss the manner of 
being in the situation of such parts as we do not see } Now if Quintns 
there came among us a fourth man as a mediator, and would do Curtius 
as King Alexander did, when he could not open the knot of Gor- mention of 
dius, he did cut it with his sword -, if this man should say : 'I will ^^" ^^^ ^^ 

* relieve this matter. You believe Christ's body is present in deed, p^^i^ ^^ 
' really and substantially. Leave out really and substantially, and God and 
' say his body is present in signification, and then it may be easily ^^'^ 

* conceived by reason, that Christ's body being never so great, may by man's 

' be as well signified by a little piece of bread as by a great piece ,|Qy ^Qnfig! 

* of bread : even as a man may write a great man's name as well in cation. 

* small letters short, as m great letters at length.* And to commend ^'^ '^ 
further his device unto us, would percase tell how many absurdities, 

8 as he thinketh, and inconveniences might be avoided by it. This 
fourth man I speak of, making himself a mediator, but in deed 



BOOK unmeet therefore, because he hath no participation with faith: 
yet if our religion and faith were man's invention, as that of Numa 

Pompilius was, he should not utter this his conceit all idly ; for 
he speaketh of a jolly easy way without any mystery or marvel at 
all. But our faith is of hearing, as hath been preached continually 
from the beginning, grounded upon the most sure tnith of the 
word of God, and therefore cannot be attempered as man would 9 

Sabellians. devise it, to exclude travail in carnal reason. For then the Sabel- 
lians were to be hearkened unto, who by their heresy took away 
all the hard and difficile questions in the mystery of the Trinity. 

Arrians. The Arrians also relieved much man s reason in consideration 

of Christ's death, denying him to be of the same substance with 
his Father, which was a pestilent heresy. Now in the sacrament 
to say Christ's body is present only by signification, as it relieveth 
in some men's judgments the absurdities in reason, which ought 
not to be relieved ; so it condemneth all the true public faith, tea- 8 
tified in the Church from the beginning hitherto, and showeth the 
learned holy men to have wondered in their writings at that 
which hath no wonder at all, to ordain one thing to be the signi- 
fication of another, which is practised daily among men. But 
from the beginning the mystery of the sacrament hath been with 
wonder marvelled at, how Christ made bread bis body, and wine 
his blood, and under the figure of those visible creatures, gave in- 
visibly his precious body and blood presently there. And as he 
gave, saith St. Bemarde ^, his life for us, so he gave his flesh 
to us 3 in that mystery to redeem us, in this to feed us. Which 
doings of Christ we must understand to have been perfected^ not 
in an imagination in a figure and signification, but really in very 
deed, truly and unfeignedly, not because we believe it so, but be- 
cause he wrought it so, whose works we must believe to be most 
perfectly true, according to the truth of the letter, where no ab- 
surdity in Scripture driveth us from it, howsoever it seem repug- 
nant to our reason, be we never so wise and witty. Which man's 
reason, now a days inflamed with fury of language, is the only ad- 
versary against the most blessed sacrament, as it may appear by 
these comparisons of differences thoroughly considered. 

It is good Did not you believe, I pray you, many years together, 

at all times „ ^ 

^ Bemardas, Super Cant, serm. 31. 


that the Bishop of Roroe was Christ'*s vicar, and the head of BOOK 
his Church ? If you did not, you wittingly and willingly 

defended a false error in the open Parliament. But sithence to conrcrt 
that time you have called that belief, as it is in deed, very to truth. 
foolish. And if you confessed your ignorance in that mat- 
ter, be no more abashed to confess it in this, if you have re- 
spect more unto God^s truth than to your own estimation. 
It is laivful and commendable for a man to learn from time 
to time, and to go from his ignorance, that he may receive 
and embrace the truth. And as for me, I am not, I grant, 
of that nature that the papists for the most part be, who 
study to devise all shameful shifts, rather than they will 
forsake any error, wherewith they were infected in youth. 
I am glad to acknowledge my former ignorance, (as St. Paul 
St. Cyprian, St. Augustine, and many other holy men did, 
who now be with Christ,) to bring other to the knowledge 
of the truth, of whose ignorance I have much ruth and pity. 
I am content to give place to God^s word, that the victory 
may be Chrisf s. What a member had the Church of God 
lost, if Paul would have been as froward as some papists be, 
that will stick to their error tooth and nail, though the 
Scripture and ancient writers be never so plain and flat 
against them P Although St. Paul erred, yet because his i Tim. L 
error was not wilful, but of ignorance, so that he gave place 
to the truth when it was opened unto him, be became of a 
most cruel persecutor a most fervent setter forth of the 
truth, and Apostle of Christ. And would God I were as 
sure that you be changed in deed in those matters of reli- 
gion, wherein with the alteration of this realm you pretend 
a change, as I am glad, even from the bottom of my heart, 
that it hath pleased Almighty God in this latter end of my 
years, to give me knowledge of my former error, and a will 
to embrace the truth, setting apart all manner of worldly 
respects, which be special hinderances, that hold back many 
from the free profession of Christ and his word, 
a And as for the Book of Common Prayer, although it say. The Jiook 
that in each part of the bread broken is received the whole j'^^™"®" 
body of Christ, yet it saith not so of the parts unbroken, 




BOOK Dor yet of the parte or whole reserved^ as the p^nste teach. 
^^^' But as in bapUsm we receive the Holy Ghost, and put 
Christ upon us, as well if we be christened in one dish full 
of water taken out of the font, as if we were christened in 
the whole font or river ; so we be as truly fed, refreshed, and 
comforted by Christ, receiving a piece of the bread at the 
Lord''s holy table, as if we did eat an whole loaf. For as in 
every part of the water in baptism is whole Christ and the 
Holy Spirit, sacramen tally, so be they in every part of the 
bread broken, but not corporally and naturally, as the pa- 
pists teach. 
Tbe papists And I bear not the catholic Church in hand, as you re- 3 
wboie**' port of me, that it saith and teacheth that whole Christ is 
Christ is in in every part of the bread consecrated, but I say that the 
of1!becoD. papists so teach. And because you deny it, read the chief 
secnted pillars of all the papists. Duns, and Thomas de Aquino^ 
which the papiste call St. Thomas, who say, that Christ is 
whole under every part of the forms of bread and wine, not 
only when the host is broken, but when it is whole alsa 
And there is no distance, saith he, of parts, one from an- 
other, as of one eye from another, or the eye from the ear, 
or the head from the feet. These be Thomas^ words. 
Christus totus est sub qualibet parte specierum panis et 
vini, non solum cum frangitur hostia, sed etiam cum in- 
tegra manet. Nee est distantia partium ab invicem, ut 
oculi ab oculo, aut oculi ab aure, aut capitis a pedibus, 
*^ sicut est in aliis corporibus organicis. Talis enim distantia 
*^ est in ipso corpore Christi vero, sed non prout est in hoc 
*' Sacramento'.*" And not only the papiste do thus write and 
teach, but the Pope himself, Innocentius the Third. And 
so bear I in hand, or report of the papiste nothing but that 
which they say in deed. 

And yet you say, the Church saith not so; which I affirm 
also, and then it must needs follow, that the doctrine of the 
papiste is not the doctrine of the Church. Which papists, 
not by reason without faith, but against as well reason as 
faith, would direct our minds to seek in every little crumb of 

1 Thomas, III. part. sum. q. 76. art. 3. 





Uds III. 


the bread, whole Christ, and to find him in so many places BOOK 
there, as be small crumbs in the bread. ^^^' 

4 And where you traverse the matter of the judgment of 
our senses herein, it is quite and clean from the matter, and 
but a crafty shift, to convey the matter to another thing 
that is not in question, like unto crafty malefactors, which 
perceiving themselves to be sore pursued with a hound, 
make a new train to draw the hound to another fresh suit 
For I speak not of the judgment of our senses in this 
matter, whether they perceive any distinction of parts and 
members or no, but whether in deed there be any such dis- 
tinction in the sacrament or no, which the papists do deny. 
And therefore I say not untruly of them, that in the sacra- 
ment they say, there is no distance of parts one from an-* 

5 And if the parts in their substance be distinct one from 
another, as you say, and be not so distinct in the sacrament, 
as Thomas saith, then must it follow, that the parts in their 
own substance be not in the sacrament. And if this dis- 
tinction of parts be in the true body of Christ, and not in 
the sacrament, as Thomas saith, then followeth it again, 
that the true body of Christ is not in the sacrament. 

And forasmuch as I speak not one word of the compre- a subtle 
hension of our senses, to what purpose do you bring this in, ■'^^fl^^ 
if it be not to draw us to a new matter, to avoid that which 
18 in controversy ? You do herein as if James should buy 
of John a parcel of land, and by his attorney take state and 
possession therein. And after John should traverse the 
matter, and say, that there was never no state delivered, 
and thereupon join their issue. And when James should 
bring forth his witnesses for the state and possession, then 
should John run to a new matter, and say that James saw 
not the possession delivered : what were this allegation of 
John to the purpose of the thing that was in issue, whether 
the possession were delivered in deed or no? Were this any 
other thing, than to avoid the issue craftily by bringing in 
of a new matter ? And yet this shift is a common practice 
of you in this book. And this is another point of the DeviPs 



BOOK sophistry, wherein it is pity that ever such a wit as you have 
should be occupied. 

Wanton AgiuD you say, that impudently I bear the catholic 6 

raison. Church in hand to teach that I list to bear in hand may 
by wanton reason be deduced of their teaching, whereas all 
true Christian men believe simply Chrises words, and trouble 
not their heads with such consequences. This is in the 
author no whispering, but plain railing, say you. This is 
your barking eloquence, wherewith your book is well fur- 
nished ; for as dogs bark at the moon without any cause, so 
do you in this place. For I do no more, but truly report 
what the papists themselves do write, and none otherwise ; 
not bearing the catholic Church in hand that it so teacheth, 
but charging the papists that they so teach; nor bearing the 
papists in hand what I list, or what by wanton reason may 
be deduced of their teaching, but reporting only what their 
own words and sayings be. 
Trae Chris- And if they be no true Christian men that trouble their 
tian men. {^^^ ^^]^ g^^)^ matters, as you afSrm they be not, then was 

Innocent the Third, the chief author of your doctrine, both 
of transubstantiadon and of the real presence, no true 
Christian man, as I believe well enough ; then was your St. 
Thomas no true Christian man ; then Gabriel, Duns, Du- 
rande, and the great rabblement of the school authors, 
which taught your doctrine of transubstantiation and of the 
real presence, were not true Christian men. And in few 
words to comprehend the whole ; then was almost none that 
taught that doctrine true Christian men, but yourself alone. 
For almost all with one consent do teach, that whole Christ 
is really in every part of the host. 

But your terms here, of railing, mocking, and scorning, I 
would have taken patiently at your hand, if your tongue 
and pen had not overshot themselves in bragging so far, 
that the truth by you should be defaced. But now I shall 
be so bold as to send those terms thither, from whence they 
came. And for the matter itself, I am ready to join an 
issue with you, notwithstanding all your stout and boasting 


7 But in Grod'^s works, say you, as the sacraments be, we BOOK 
must think all seemliness in deed without deformity* But ^"' 
what seemliness is this in a man^s body, that the head is 
where the feet be, and the arms where the legs be? which 

the papists do teach, and yourself seem to confess, when you 
say, that the parts of Christ^s body be distinct in themselves 
one from another in th^r own substance, but not by ciroum- 
scription of several places. And yet you seem again to 
deny the same in your wise dialogue or quadrilogue between 
the curious questioner, the foolish answerer, your wise ca- 
tholic man standing by, and the mediator. 

In which dialogue you bring in your wise catholic man A dinlogue. 
to condemn of madness all such as say, that Christ'^s head ^'^ '^ 
is there where his feet be, and so you condemn of madness 
not only all the scholastical doctors, (which say that Christ 
is whole in every part of the consecrated bread,) but also 
your own former saying, where you deny the distinction of 
the parts of Christ^s body in several places. Wherefore 
the mediator seemeth wiser than yovi all, who loosing this 
knot of Grordius, saith, that Chrisf s body, how big soever 
it be, may be as well signified by a little piece of bread as 
by a great : and so as concerning the reason of a sacrament, 
all is one, whether it be an whole bread or a piece of it ; as 
it skilleth not whether a man be christened in the whole 
font, or in a part of the water taken out thereof. For the 
respect and consideration of the sacrament is all one in the 
less and the more. 

8 But this fourth man, say you, hath no participation with 
faith, condemning all the true public faith testified in the 
Church from the beginning hitherto, which hath ever with 
wonder marvelled at the mystery of the sacrament, which is 
no wonder at all, if bread be but a signification of Christ^s 

body. This is a wonderful saying of you, as of one that What U to 
understood nothing utterly, what a sacrament meaneth, and ^ aUn^bc 
what is to be wondered at in the sacrament. For the wonder Bacramrnt. 
is not, how God worketh in the outward visible sacrament, 
but his marvellous work is in the worthy receivers of the 
sacraments. The wonderful work of God is not in the 


BOOK water, whidi ooly washeth the body, but God by his omni- 

Iff fi 9 

potent power worketh wonderfully in the receivers thereof, 
scouring, washing, and making them clean inwardly, and as 
it were new men, and celestial creatures. This have all old 
authors wondered at, this wonder passeth the capacities of 
all men^s wits, how damnation is turned into salvation, and 
of the son of the Devil condemned into hell, is made the son 
of God and inheritor of heaven. This wonderful work of 
God all men may marvel and wonder at: but no creature is 
able sufficiently to comprehend it. And as this is wondered 
at in the sacrament of baptism, how he that was subject 
unto death, reo^veth life by Christ, and his Holy Spirit : 
so is this wondered at in the sacrament of Christ^s holy 
table, how the same life is continued and endureth for ever, 
by continual feeding upon Christ^s flesh and his blood. And 
these wonderful works of God towards us, we be taught by 
God'*s holy word and his sacraments of bread, wine, and 
water, and yet be not these wonderful works of Grod in the 
sacraments, but in us. 

And although many authors use this manner of speech, 
that Christ maketh bread his body and wine his blood, and 
wonder thereat, yet those authors mean not of the bread 
and wine in themselves, but of the bread and wine eaten 
and drunken of faithful people. For when Christ called 
bread his body and wine his blood, he spake not those words 
to the bread and wine, but to the eaters and drinkers of 
them, saying, JSa/, ihis is my bodff. Drink, this is my 
blood ; signifying to them that worthily do eat that bread 
and drink that cup, that they be inwardly and inviribly fed 
with Christ^s flesh and blood, as they outwardly and visibly 
receive the sacraments of them. 

To be short, here in this process you use plenty of words 
at your pleasure, to make the reader believe that I should 
suppose confusion, monstrousness, absurdity, and unseemli- 
ness to be in Gfxl^s holy sacraments, whereas I do no mcMne 
but tell what monstrous absurdities and errors the papists 9 
do teach in the sacraments. But if the reader take good 
heed to your talk, he shall And, that you, lacking good 


matter to answer 'this oomparison, do fitU unto railing, and BOOK 
enforce your pen to invent such stuff as might bring me into ^^^' 
hatred undeserved ; which kind of rhetoric is called, canina 
Jacundiaj and is used only of them that hunt for their own 
praise by the dispnuse of their adversary. Which is yet an- 
other trick of the DeviPs sophistry. 

And because you would bring me into more extreme ha- SabeUias, 
tred, you couple me with Sabellius and Arrius, whose doc- 
trines, as you say, were facile and easy, as here you confess 
mine for to be. But if all such expositions as make the 
Scriptures plain, should by and by be slanderously com- 
pared to the doctrines of Arrius and Sabellius, then should 
all the expositions of the doctors be brought in danger, be- 
cause that by their pains they have made hard questions 
facile and easy. And yet whether the doctrine which I set 
forth be easy to understand or not, I cannot define, but it 
seemeth so hard that you cannot understand it, except you 
will put all the fault in your wilfulness, that you can, and 
will not understand it. 
Now foUoweth the sixth comparison. 
*^ Furthermore the papists say, that a dog or a cat eat 
the body of Christ, if they by chance do eat the sacra- 
mental bread. We say, that no earthly creature can eat 
the body of Christ nor drink his blood, but only man.^ 


I HAVK read some that entreat these chances of dogs and cats, Tbe con- 
but I never beard any of that abominable opinion, to say or write so ^^^y *^- 
as a doctrine, that a dog or a cat eateth the body of Christ, and set for a doc- 
it forth for a teaching, as this author most impudently supposeth, ^^-^ 
and I marvel much that such a word and such a report can come 
out of a Christian man*s mouth, and therefore this is by the author 
a marvellous surmise : whereupon to take occasion to bring the 
adversative " but** for the author's part, being such a saying on 
that side, as all Christendom hath ever taught, that no creature Pupatcum 
can eat the body and blood of Christ, but only man. But this^r^^P^' 
abominable surmised untruth in the former part of his comparison, [1580.] 
may be taken for a proof, whether such beastly asseverations 


BOOK proceed from the spirit of truth or no. And whether truth be 
^^^- there intended, where such blasphemy is surmised. But let us 
see the rest. 


Yet still in these comparisons you grant that part of the 
difference to be true, which I aiBrm, but you say that I report 
untruly of the papists^ impudently bearing them in hand to 
say such abominable and beastly asseverations as you never 
heard. Whereby appeareth your impudent arrogancy in 
denial of that thing, which either you know the papists do 
say, or you are in doubt whether they say or say not, having 
Whether a not read what it is that they say. For why do they reject 
bcMwreat ^^^ Master of the Sentences in this point, that he said, a 
the body of mouse or brute beast receive not the body of Christ, 
"^ although they seem to rec^ve it ? Wherein if you say, as 
the Master did°*, that the mouse receiveth not the body 
of Christ, look for no favour at the papists^ hands, but to be 
rejected as the Master was, unless they forbear you upon 
favour, and because that in other matters you have been so 
good a captain for them, they will pardon you this one fault. 
And so is this first part of the difference no untrue surmise 
of me, but a determination of the papists, condemning who^ 
soever would say the contrary. And this is a common pro- 
position among the school divines, that the body of Christ re- 
maineth so long as the form of the bread is remaining, where- 
soever it be; whereof your St. Thomas writeth thus°: 
'^ Quidam vero dixerunt, quod quam primum sacramentum 
'^ sumitur a mure vel cane, desinit ibi esse corpus Christi. 
<' Sed hoc derogat veritati hujus sacramenti. Substantia 
*^ enim panis sumpta a peccatore tarn diu manet, dum per 
*^ calorem naturalem est in digestione, igitur tarn diu manet 
^^ corpus Christi sub speciebus sacramentalibus.^ And 
Peryn. Peryn in his book printed and set abroad in this matter for 
all men to read, saith^ that although the mouse, or any 

™ Lib. iv. distinct. 13. Vid. Marcum Constantiumy fol. 72. object. 94. 

n Thomas, III. part. sum. qu. 80. art. 3. [1580.] 


other beast do eat the sacrameDt^ yet nevertheless the same BOOK 

is the very and real body of Christ. And he asketh what 1— 

inconvenience it is against the verity of Christ^s real body 
in the sacrament, though the impassible body lie in the 
mouth or maw of the beast ? Is it not therefore the body of 
Christ? Yes undoubtedly, saith he. So that now these 
abominable opinions, and beastly asseverations, as you truly 
term them, meaning thereby to bite me as appeareth, be fit 
terms and meet for the papists, whose asseverations they be. 

Now followeth the seventh comparison. 

'^ They say, that every man, good and evil, eateth the body 
^^ of Christ. We say, that both do eat the sacramental bread 
*' and drink the wine, but none do eat the very body of 
** Christ and drink his blood, but only they that be lively 
** members of his body.**^ 


In this comparison the former part speaking of such men as be 

2 by baptism received into Christ^s Church, is very true, confirmed 
by St. Paul, and ever since affirmed in the Church, in the proof 
whereof here in this book I will not travail, but make it a demur^ as a demor 

I it were, in law, whereupon to try the truth of the whole matter. If VP<>n **»»■ 
that doctrine called by this author the doctrine of the papists, and is [15S0.] 
in deed the catholic doctrine, be not in this point true, let all be so 
judged for me. If it be true, as it is most true, let that be a mark, 
whereby to judge the rest of this author s untrue asseverations. 

3 For undoubtedly St. Augustine saith ^ : " We may not of men*s 
** manners esteem the sacraments ^ they be made by him whose 

they be, but worthily used they bring reward, unworthily handled 
^* they bring judgment. He that dispenseth the sacrament wor- 
thily, and he that useth it unworthily, be not one, but that 
*' thing is one, whether it be handled worthily or unworthily, 
" so as it b neither better ne worse» but life or death of them 
" that use it.** Thus saith St. Augustine, and therefore be the 
receiver worthy or unworthy, good or evil, the substance of 
Christ's sacrament is all one, as being God's work, who worketh 
uniformly, and yet is not in all that receive of like effect, not for 

^ August. Contra LUeroi TetiL lib. ii. cap. 37. 




BOOK any i^teration or diminution in it, but for the diversity of him 

ni. that reeeiveth. So as the report made here of the doctrine of the 

catholic Church under the name of papists, is a very true report, 

and for want of grace reproved by the author as though it were 

no true doctrine. And the second part of the comparison on the 

author's side, contained under * we say,* by them that in hypocrisy 

pretend to be truth's friends, containeth an untruth to the simple 4 

reader, and yet hath a matter of wrangling to the learned reader. 

The word because of the word " very,'* which referred to the effect of eating 

*' '*'^"v *^® ^^J of Christ, whereby to receive life, may be so spoken, 

wmngliug. that none receive the body of Christ with the very effect of life, 

[15S0.] ^„( gy^ii 3g Qg^^ ^Q sacrament spiritually, that is to say, with true 

faith worthily. And yet evil men, as Judas, receive the same very 5 

body, touching the truth of the presence thereof, that St. Peter 

did. For in the substance of the sacrament, which is God's work, 

is no variety, who ordaineth all, as afore, uniformly ; but in man 

is the variety, amongst whom he that reeeiveth worthily Christ's 

body, reeeiveth life, and he that reeeiveth unworthily, reeeiveth 

condemnation. There followeth further. 


\^]ietber I thank you for this demur, for I myself could have t 
^^^h* tod ^'^^^^'^ ^^ better for my purpose. And I am content that 
of Christ the trial of the whole matter be judged hereby, as you de- 
sire. You say, that all that be baptized, good and evil, eat 
the body of Christ; and I say, only the good^ and not the 

Now must neither I nor you be judges in our own causes, . 
therefore let Christ be judge between us both, whose judg- 
John Ti. ment it is not reason that you refuse. Christ sayeth, IVho^ 
soever eatetk my flesh and drinketh my bloody dweUeth in me 
and I in him. As the living Fa4her haih sent me, and I 
live by the Father y even so he that eateth me^ sJudl live by 
me. 7%M is the bread which came dofwnjrom heaven. Not 
as your fathers did eat manna and are dead, he that eateth 
this bread shall Uvejbr ever. Now I ask you this question, 
Whether evil men shall live for ever ? Whether they live by 
Christ? Whether they dwell in Christ, and have Christ 
dwelling in them ? If you say nay, as you must needs do if 


you will say the truth, then have I proved my negative, BOOK 
wherein stood the demur, that ill men eat not Christ'^s body ' 

nor drink his blood : for if they did, then by Chrises own 
words, they should live for ever, and dwell in Christ, and 
have Christ dwelling in them. And what proofs will you 
require more upon my part in this demur ? For if Christ be 
with me, who can be able to stand against me ? 

3 But you allege for you St. Paul, who speaketh for you 
nothing at all. For the messenger will not speak against 
him that sent him. I know that St. Paul, in the eleventh to i Cor. xi. 
the Corinthians, speaketh expressly of the unworthy eating 
of the bread, but in no place of the unworthy eating of the 
body of Christ. And if he do, show the place, or else the 
demur passeth against you, and the whole matter tried with 
ii>^9 l>y your own pact and covenant. And yet for further 
proof of this demur, I refer me to the first, second, third, 
fourth, and fifth chapters of my fourth book. 

3 And where you bring St. Augustine to be witness P« his 
witness in that place helpeth nothing your cause. For he 
speaketh there generally of the using of the sacraments well 
or ill, as the diversity of men be, rehearsing by name the sa- 
crament of circumcision, of the paschal lamb, and of baptism. 
Wherefore if you will prove any real and corporal presence 
of Christ by that place, you may as well prove that he was 
corporally present in circumcision, in eating of that paschal 
lamb, and in baptism, as in the Lord^s Supper. 

And here ye use such a subtlety to deceive the simple 
reader, that he hath good cause to suspect your proceedings, 
and to take good heed of you in all your writings, who do 
nothing else but go about to deceive him. For you con- 
elude the matter of the substance of the sacrament, that the 
reader might think that place to speak only of the sacra- 
ment of Cbrist^s body and blood, and to speak of the sub- 
stance thereof, where St. Augustine neither hath that word, 
'^ substance,**^ nor speaketh not one word specially of that sa- 
crament, but all his process goeth chiefly of baptism, which 
is all one, (saith St. Augustine against the Donatists, which 
P Auf^st. Contra Idteras PetiL lib. ii. cap. 37. 







reproved baptism for the vice of the minister,) whether the 
minister be good or ill, and whether he minister it to good 
or to ill. For the sacrament is all one, although the effect 
be diverse to good and to evil. 

And as for them whom ye say that in hypocrisy pretend 4 
to be truth^s fiiends, all that be learned and have any judg- 
ment, know that it is the papists, which no few years passed, 
by hypocrisy and feigned religion, have uttered and sold 
their lies and fables in the stead of God'^s eternal truth, and 
in the place of Christ have set up idols and Antichrist. And 
for the conclusion of this comparison, in this word ** very'*^ 
you make such a wrangling, where none occasion is g^ven, 
as never was had before this time of any learned man. For 
who heard ever before this time, that an adjective was re- 
ferred to a verb, and not to his proper substantive, of any 
man that had any learning at all ? 

And as for the matter of Judas is answered before. For 5 
he reodved not the bread that was the Lord, as St. Augus- 
tine saith ^, but the bread of the Lord. For no man can re- 
ceive the body of Christ unworthily, although he may re- 
ceive unworthily the sacrament thereof. 

And hitherto Dr. Smythe hath found no fault at all in 
my comparisons, whereby the reader may see, how nature 
passeth art, seeing here much more captiousness in a subtle 
sophistical wit, than in him that hath but learned the so- 
phistical art. Now followeth the eighth comparison. 

** They say, that good men eat the body of Christ and 
** drink his blood, only at that time when they receive the 
'< sacrament. We say, that they eat, drink, and feed of 
<* Christ continually, so long as they be members of his 
«< body.^ 


What forehead, I pray you, is so hardened, that can utter this i 
among them that know any thing of the learning of Christ^s 
Three man- Church } In which it is a most common distinction, that there Is 
three manner of eatings of Christ's body and blood : one^ spiritual 

4 August. In Joan, tract. 59. 


The eighth 


ner of eat- 


only/which is here affirmed in the second part 'we say/ wherein BOOK 
the author and his say as the Church saith. Another eating is ^^^' 
both sacramentally and spiritually, which is when men worthily 
communicate in the Supper. The third is sacramentally only, 
which is by men unworthy, who eat and drink in the holy Supper 
to their condemnation only. And the learned men in Christ's Cause of 
Church say, that the ignorance and want of observation of these ^'^' 
three manner of eatings causcth the error in the understanding of 
the Scriptures, and such fathers* sayings as have written of the 
i sacrament. And when the Church speaketh of these three manner 
of eatings, what an impudency is it to say, that the Church 
teacheth good men only to eat the body of Christ and drink his 
blood, when they receive the sacrament, being the truth other- 
wise ; and yet a diversity there is, of eating spiritually only, and 
eating spiritually and sacramentally, because in the Supper they 
receive his very flesh and very blood in deed, with the effects 
of all graces and gifts to such as receive it spiritually and wor- 
thily : whereas out of the Supper, when we eat only spiritually by 
faith, God that worketh without his sacraments as seemeth to 
him, doth relieve those that believe and trust in him, and suffereth 
them not to be destitute of that is necessary for them; whereof 
we may not presume, but ordinarily seek God where he hath or- God's pro- 
dered himself to be sought, and there to assure ourselves of his ™*^ (JJ^kj, 
covenants and promises, which be most certainly annexed to his sacrn- 
sacraments, whereunto we ought to give most certain trust ^^we^mastiii 
confidence : wherefore to teach the spiritual manducation to be teacbing 
equal with the spiritual manducation and sacramental also, that^|[^^ 
b to diminish the effect of the institution of the sacrament, which ments after 
no Christian man ought to do. ^.^^ *^' 



J Who is 80 Ignorant that hath read any thing at all, but 
he knoweth the distinction of three eatings ? But no man 
that is of learning and judgment understandeth the three Three man- 
divers eatings in such sort as you do ; but after this manner : ?^^ ^^ ^'^ 
that some eat only the sacrament of Christ^s body, but not 
the very body itself; some eat his body and not the sacra- 
ment ; and some eat the sacrament and body both together. 
The sacrament, that is to say, the bread, is corporally eaten 



BOOK and chawed with the teeth in the mouth. The very bodv 
III •' " 

ifi eaten and chawed with faith in the spirit Unfcodly men. 

when they receive the sacrament, they chaw in their mouths, 
like unto Judas, the sacramental bread, but they eat not the 
celestial bread, which is Christ. Faithful Christian people, 
such as be Christ^s true disciples, continually from time to 
time record in their minds the beneficial death of our Sa- 
viour Christ, chawing it by faith in the cud of their spirit, 
and digesting it in their hearts, feeding and comforting 
themselves with that heavenly meat, although they daily 
receive not the sacrament thereof, and so they eat Chrisfs 
body spiritually, although not the sacrament thereof. But 
Trae ■•era- when such men for their more comfort and confirmation of 
JJ*" eternal life, pven unto them by Chrisfs death, come unto 

the Lord'^s holy table, then, as before they fed spiritually 
upon Christ, so now they feed corporally also upon the sa- 
cramental bread. By which sacramental feeding in Chrisfs 
promises their former spiritual feeding is increased, and 
they grow and wax continually more strong in Christ, until 
at the last they shall come to the full measure and perfection 
in Christ. This is the teaching of the true catholic Church, 
1 Cor. 11. as it is taught by Grod^s word. And therefore St. Paul, 
speaking of them that unworthily eat, saith, that they eat 
the bread, but not that they eat the body of Christ, but 
their own damnation. 
Whether And where you set out with your accustomed rhetorical a 
^jjy^i^ colours a great impudency in me, that would report of the 
without the papists that good men eat the body of Christ and drink his 
' blood only when they receive the sacrament, seeing that I 
know that the papists make a distinction of three manner of 
eatings of Chrisf s body, whereof one is without the sacra- 
ment : I am not ignorant in deed, that the papists grant a 
spiritual eating of Christ^s body without the sacrament, but 
I mean of such an eating of his body as his presence is in 
the sacrament, and as you say he is there eaten, that is to 
say, corporally. Therefore to express my mind more 
plainly to you that list not understand, let this be the com- 


They say, that after such a sort as Christ is in the sacra- BOOK 
ment, and there eaten, so good men eat his body and blood '^'' 

only, when they receive the sacrament. We say, that as'^<»™- 
they eat and drink Christ in the sacrament, so do they eat, [1580.]' 
drink, and feed upon him continually, so long as they be 
members of his body. 

Now the papists say, that Christ is corporally present in 
the sacrament, and is so eaten only when men receive the sa- 
crament. But we say, that the presence of Christ in his 
holy Supper is a spiritual presence : and as he is spiritually 
present, so is he spiritually eaten of all faithful Christian 
men, not only when they receive the sacrament, but con- 
tinually so long as they be members spiritual of Chrisfs 
mystical body. And yet this is really also, as you have ex- Really. 
pounded the word, that is to say, in deed and effectually. 
And as the Holy Ghost doth not only come to us in bap- 
tism, and Christ doth there clothe us, but they do the same 
to us continually so long as we dwell in Christ ; so likewise 
doth Christ feed us so long as we dwell in him and he in us, 
and not only when we receive the sacrament. So that as 
touching Christ himself, the presence is all one, the clothing 
all one, and the feeding all one, although the one, for the 
more comfort and consolation, have the sacrament added 
unto it, and the other be without the sacrament. 

The rest that is here spoken is contentious wrangling to 
no purpose. 

But now Cometh in Smith with his five eggs, saying that Smyib. 
I have made here five lies in these comparisons. The first lie 
is, saith he, that the papists do say, that good men do eat 
and drink Christ'^s body and blood only when they receive 
the sacrament, which thing Smith saith the papists do not 
say, but that they then only do eat Christ^s body and drink 
his blood corporally, which sufiiceth for my purpose. For 
I mean none other thing, but that the papists teach such a 
corporal eating of Christ^s body as endureth not, but vanish- 
eth away, and ceaseth at the furthest within few hours after 
the sacrament be received. But forasmuch as Smithe 
agreeth here with you, that answer made before to you will 



BOOK serve for him also. And yet Smith here shall serve me in 
good stead against you, who hath imputed unto me so many 

impudent lies made against the papists in the comparisons 
before rehearsed : and Smith saith that this is the first lie, 
which is in the eighth comparison. And so shall Smithe. 
being mine adversary and your friend, be such a witness 
for me as you cannot except against, to prove that those 
things which before you said were impudent lies, be no lies 
at all. For this is the first lie, saith Smith, and then my 
sayings before must be all true, and not impudent lies. Now 
to the ninth comparison. 

*^ They say, that the body of Christ that is in the sacra- 
" ment hath his own proper form and quantity. We say, 

that Christ is there sacramentally and spiritually without 

form or quantity .'^ 


In this comparison is both sleight and craft. In the first part of 
it, which is that they say, there is mention of the body of Christ 
which is proper of the humanity of Christ. In the second part, 
which is of ' we say/ there is no mention of Christ's body, but of 
Christ's Christ, who in his divine nature is understanded present without 
d^^toaded'* body. Now the sacrament is institute of Christ's body and 
of his ha- blood, and because the divine nature in Christ continueth the a 
?^?^^* unity with the body of Christ, we must needs confess, where the 
The unity body of Christ is, there is whole Christ God and man. And 
°^ ^lJ??J'* when we speak of Christ's body, we must understand a true body, 
and God- which hath both form and quantity, and therefore such as confess 
^^' the true catholic faith, they affirm of Christ's body all truth of a 

natural body, which although it hath all those truths of form and 
quantity, yet they say, Christ's body is not present after the man^ 
ner of quantity, nor in a visible form, as it was conversant in this 3 
present life, but that there is truly in the sacrament the very true 4 
body of Christ, which good men believe upon the credit of Christ 
that said so, and knowledge therewith the manner of that pre- 
sence to be an high mystery, and the manner so spiritual, as the 
carnal man cannot by discourse of reason reach it, but in his dis- 
course shall, as this author doth, think it a vanity and foolishness. 
Which foolishness nevertheless overcometh the wisdom of the 


worid. And thus I have opened what the^r say on the catholic BOOK 
part. ^"' 

Now for the other part whereof this author is, and with his A marvcl- 
fiiith, ' we say,* the words seem to imply, that Christ's human oToils au*-^ 
body is not in the sacrament, in that it is said, Christ to be there ^^or ^i^h- 
sacramentally and spiritually without form or quantity, which say- ^^^ ^"^~ 
ing hath no Scripture for it. For the Scripture speaketh of [i 5^0.] 
Christ's body which was betrayed for us to be given us to be 
eaten. Where also Christ's Divinity is present as accompanying Christ in 
his humanity, which humanity is specially spoken of, the presence ^^^^f ^^^ 
of which humanity when it is dented, then is there no text to sacrament, 
prove the presence of Christ*s Divinity specially, that is to say, humanity," 
otherwise than it is by his omnipotency present everywhere. And saying, 
to conclude this piece of comparison, this manner of speech was ^^ ^ 
never I think read, that Christ is present in the sacrament with- ['s^^O 
1 out form or quantity. And St. Paul speaketli of a form in the 
Godhead, Qui quum in forma Dei esset. Who when he was in the Phil. ii. 
form of God, So as if Christ be present in the sacrament with- 
out all form, then is he there, neither as God nor man, which is 
a stranger teaching than yet hath been heard or read of; but into 
such absurdities in deed do they fall, who entreat irreverently and 
untruly this high mystery. This is here worthy a special note, 
bow by the manner of the speech in the latter part of this differ- 
ence, the teaching seemeth to be, that Christ is spiritually present 
in the sacrament, because of the word " there," which thou, reader. There, 
mayest compare how it agreeth with the rest of this author's ^oc-L'^^J. 

trine. Let us go to the next. contrariety 

in the aa- 

Ccmterbury. [is^o-] 

Such is the nature of many, that they can find many 
knots in a plain rush, and doubts where no doubts ought to 
be found. So find you sleight and craft where I meant all 
things »mply and plainly. And to avoid such sleight and 
craft as you gather of my words, I shall express them plainly 

The papists say, that the body of Christ that is in the sa^ The com- 
crament hath his own proper form and quantity. We say^ [f^g^.]* 
that the body of Christ hath not his proper form and quan- 
tity, neither in the sacrament nor in them that receive the 



BOOK sacrament, but is in the sacrament sacramentally, and in the 
^^^' worthy receivers spiritually, without the proper form and 

quantity of his body. This was my meaning at the first, 
and no man that had looked of this place indifierently 
would have taken the second part of this comparison to be 
understanded of Chrisf s divine nature : for the bread and 
wine be sacraments of his body and blood, and not of his 
Divinity, as Theodoretus saith % and therefore his divine na- a 
ture is not sacramentally in the sacrament, but his human 
nature only. And what manner of speech had this been, to 
say of Christ'^s divine nature, that it is in the sacrament 
without quandty, which hath in it no manner of quantity, 
wheresoever it be? And where I set forth these compari- 
sons to show wherein we vary from the papists, what 
variance had been in this comparison, if I had understanded 
the first part of Christ^s humanity, and the second of his 
Divinity ? 

The reader by this one place among many other may 

easily discern how captious you be to reprehend whatsoever 

I say, and to pervert every thing into a wrong sense: so 

Smyth. that in respect of you, Smyth is a very indifierent taker of 

my words, although in deed he far passeth the bounds of 


Whether in But now to come directly to the matter, if it be true that 

ment ^ ' J^^ ^9 ^^^^ ^^ ^^^ sacrament Christ^s body hath all the 

Slf^h' h ^°^™^ ^^^ quantities of a natural body, why say you then, 

his proper that his body is not there present after the manner of quan- 

^uimt?t°^ tity ? Declare what difierence is between form and quantity, 

and the manner of quantity. And if ChrisOs body in the 

sacrament have the same quantity, that is to say^ the same 

length, breadth, and thickness, and the same form, that is 

to say, the same due order and proportion of the members 

and parts of his body that he had when he was crucified, 

and hath now in heaven, (as he hath by your saying here in 

this place,) then I pray you declare further, how the length, 

breadth, and thickness of a man should be contained in 

quantity within the compass of a piece of bread, no longer 

' Theodoret. Dialog, 1. 


nor broader than one or two inches, nor much thicker than book 
one leaf of paper : how an inch may be as long as an ell, ^^^' 
and an ell as short as an inch : how length and roundness 
shall agree in one proportion ; and a thick and thin thing 
be both of one thickness : which you must warrant to be 
brought to pass, if the form and quantity of Chrisf s body 
be contained under the form and quantity of such bread 
and wine as we now use. 

But as Smyth in the last comparison did me good service Smyth, 
against you, so shall you in this comparison do me good 
service against him. For among the five lies wherewith he 
chargeth me in these comparisons, he accounteth this for 
one, that I report of the papists, that Chrises body in the 
sacrament hath his proper form and quantity, which you 
say is a truth. And therefore if I make a lie herein, as 
Smith saith I do, yet I lie not alone, but have you to bear 
me company. And yet once again more may the reader 
here note, how the papists vary among themselves. 
4 And it is untrue that you say, that good men believe 
upon the credit of Christ, that there is truly in the sacra- 
ment the very true body of Christ. For Christ called 
bread his body and wine his blood, which, as the old authors 
say, must needs be understanded figuratively, but he never 
said that his true body is truly in the sacrament, as you 
bwe report of him. 

And the manner of his presence you call so high a mys- 
tery, that the carnal man cannot reach it. And in deed as 
you feign the matter, it is so high a mystery, that never 
man could reach it but yourself alone. For you make the 
manner of Chrisf s being in the sacrament so spiritual, that 
you say his flesh, blood, and bones be there really and car- 
nally, and yet you confess in your book, that you never 
read any old author that so said. And this manner of 
handling of so pure a mystery, is neither godly foolishness 
nor worldly, but rather a mere frensy and madness. 

And although the Scripture speak of Christ^s body to be 
eaten of us, yet that is understanded of spiritual and not of 
corporal eating, and of sfnritual, not of corporal presence. 



BOOK The Scripture saith, that Christ hath forsaken the worlds 
and is ascended into heaven. Upon which words St. 

Marft^xFi -A.ugustine, Vigilius, and other ancient authors do prove, 
Luke xziF. that as concerning the nature of his manhood, Christ is gone 
^^ '' hence, and is not here, as I have declared in my third book, 
the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth chapters. 

And where you think that this manner of speech was 
never read, that Christ is present in the sacrament without i 
form or quantity, I am sure that it was never read in any 
approved author, that Christ hath his proper form and 
quantity in the sacrament. And Duns saith', that his quan-3 
tity is in heaven, and not in the sacrament. 

And when I say that Christ is in the sacrament sacra- 
mentally, and without form and quantity, who would think 
any man so captious, so ignorant, or so full of sophistry, to 
draw my words to the form of ChrisOs Divinity, which I 
speak most plainly of the form and quantity of his body and 
humanity, as I have before declared ? And although some 
other might be so far overseen, yet specially you ought not 
so to take my words. Forasmuch as you said not past six- 
teen lines before, that my words seem to imply, that I meant 
of Christ^s human body. 

And because it may appear how truly and faithfully you 
•* All." report my words, you add this word *' all,'' which is more 
than I spake, and marreth all the whole matter. And you 
gather thereof such absurdities as I never spake, but as you 
sophistically do gather, to make a great matter of nothing. 
"There." And where of this word "there,'' you would conclude re- 
pugnance in my doctrine, that where in other places I have 
written, that Christ is spiritually present in them that re- 
ceive the sacrament, and not in the sacraments of bread 
and wine, and now it should seem that I teach contrary, 
that Christ is spiritually present in the very bread and wine, 
if you pleased to understand my words rightly, there is no 
repugnance in my words at all. For by this word " there," 
I mean not in the sacraments of bread and wine, but in the 
ministration of the sacrament, as the old authors for the 

' Scotus, iv. sent. dist. 10. q. 1. 



roost part^ when they speak of the presence of Christ in BOOK 
the sacrament, they mean in the ministration of the aacra- 
inent. Which my saying varieth from no doctrine that I 
have taught in any part of my book. Now followeth the 
tenth comparison. 

They say, that the fathers and prophets of the old 
testament did not eat the body nor drink tlie blood of 
Christ. We say, that they did eat his body and drink 
his blood, although he was not yet born nor incarnated.**^ 


This comparison of difference is clerkly conceived, as it were of A riddle 

1 a riddle, wherein, nay and yea, when they be opened, agree and tafn troth 
consent. The fathers did eat Christ's body and drink his blood ^^ °*y f °<1 
in truth of promise, which was effectual to them of redemption to hi appear- 
be wrought, not in truth of presence, as we do, for confirmation ^^^ ^o 
of redemption already wrought. They had a certain promise, [icSo.] 
and we a certain present payment : they did eat Christ spiritually, 
beliering in him that was to come, but they did not eat Christ's 
body present in the sacrament, sacramentally and spiritually, as 
we do. Their sacraments were figures of the things, but ours 

3 contain the very things. And therefore albeit in a sense to the 
learned men, it may be yeri6ed, that the fathers did eat the body 
of Christ and drink his blood, yet there is no such form of words 

3 in Scripture, and it is more agreeable to the simplicity of Scrip- 
ture to say, the fathers before Christ's nativity did not eat the 
body and blood of Christ, which body and blood Christ himself 
truly took of the body of the Virgin Mary. For although St. 
Paul in the tenth of the Corinthians be so understanded of some, 
as the fathers should eat the same spiritual meat and drink the 
same spiritual drink that we do, to which understanding all do 
not agree, yet following that understanding, we may not so press 
the words as there should be no difference at all, and this one 
special difference St. Augustine noteth, how their sacraments con- Aagusti- 
tained the promise of that which in our sacraments is gi^^Q* T^'Lc' i 
Thus he saith, and this is evident of itself, how to us in the holy difference 

4 Supper Christ saith. This is my body that shall be hetrayed for^^f^^^^' 
yott, take, eat} which was never said to the fathers, although [1580.] 
their faith in substance agreed with ours, having all one Christ 


BOOK and mediator, which they looked for to come, and we acknowledge 
"^' to be already come. "Come," and "to come,'* as St. Augustine saith, s 

differeth. But Christ is one, by whom all was create, and man*s 
fall repaired, from whom is all feeding corporal and spiritual, and 
in whom all is restored in heaven and in earth. In this faith of 
Christ, the fathers were fed with heavenly spiritual food, which 
was the same with ours in respect of the restitution by Christ, 
and redemption by them hoped, which is achieved by the mys- 
tery of the body and blood of Christ ; by reason whereof I deny 
not, but it may be said in a good sense^ how they did eat the body 
and blood of Christ before he was incarnate, but, as I said before. 
Scripture speaketb not so, and it is no wholesome fashion of 6 
speech at this time, which furthereth in sound to the ears of the 
Jooe of rude, the pestilent heresy wherein Jone of Kent obstinately died, 

Jtina" ^^ ***** ^® *® ^' ***** Christ took nothing of the Virgin, but brought 
[1580.] his body with him from above: being a thing worthy to be noted^ 
how the old heresy, denying the true taking of the flesh of Christ 
in the Virgin*s womb, at the same time to revive, when the true 
deliverance of Christ's flesh in the holy Supper to be of us eaten 
is also denied. For as it is a mere truth without figure, and yet 
an high mystery, God's work in the incarnation of Christ, where- 
in our flesh was of Christ truly taken of the Virgin's substance : so 
is it a mere truth, without figure, and yet an high mystery and 
God*s work, in the giving of the same true flesh, truly to be in the 
Supper eaten. When I exclude figure in the sacrament, I mean 
not of the visible part, which is called a figure of the celestial invi- 
sible part, which is truly there without figure ; so as by that figure 
is not impaired the truth of that presence ; which I add to avoid 
Novelty of cavillation. And to make an end of this comparison, this I say, 

speech. ^j^^^ ^y^ article declareth wantonness to make a difference in 
[^1500. J 

words, where none is in the sense rightly taken, with a novelty of 

speech not necessary to be uttered now. 


Note well here, reader, how the cuttle cometh in with his 
dark colours. 

Where I speak of the substance of the thing that is eaten, 
you turn it to the manner and circunistances thereof, to 
blind the simple reader, and that you may make thereof a 
riddle of yea and nay, as you be wont to make black white. 


and white black ; or one thing yea and nay, black and white, book 
at your pleasure. ^^^' 

But to put away your dark colours, and to make the The fathers 
t matter plain, this I say, that the fathers and prophets did chrisr 
eat Chrisfs body and drink his blood in promise of redemp- flesh and 
tion to be wrought, and we eat and drink the same flesh bi^. '* 
and blood in conflrmation of our faith in the redemption al- 
ready wrought. 

But as the fathers did eat and drink, so did also the Apo- 
stles at Chrisf s supper, in promise of redempUon to be 
wrought, not in con6rmation of redemption already wrought. 
So that if wrought and to be wrought, make the diversity 
of presence and not presence, then the Apostles did not eat 
and drink the flesh and blood of Christ really present, be- 
cause the redemption was not then already wrought, but 
promised the next day to be wrought. And although be- 
2 fore the crucifying of his flesh, and effusion of his blood, our 
redemption was not actually wrought by Christ, yet was he 
spiritually and sacramentally present, and spiritually and 
sacramentally eaten and drunken, not only of the Apostles 
at his last supper before he suffered his passion, but also of 
the holy patriarchs and fathers before his incarnation, as 
well as he is now of us after his ascension. 

And although in the manner of signifying there be great The diver- 
difierence between their sacraments and ours, yet, as St. Au- JiCTamMits 
gustine saith % both we and they receive one thing in the di- of the New 
versity oi sacraments ; and our sacraments contain presently ^tament. 
the very things sngnified, no more than theirs did. For in 
their sacraments they were by Christ presently regenerated 
and fed, as we be in ours; although their sacraments were 
figures of the death of Christ to come, and ours be figures 
of his death now past. And as it is all one Christ that was 
to be bom and to die for us, and afterward was bom in 
deed, and died in deed, (whose birth and death be now 
passed,) so was the same Christ, and the same flesh and 
blood, eaten and drunken of the faithful fathers before he 

< August, in Joan, tract. 26. 


BOOK was born or dead, and of his Apostles after he was bom and 
^^^' before he was dead, and of faithful Christian people is now 

daily eaten and drunken after that both his nativity and 
death be passed. And all is but one Christ, one flesh, and 
one blood, as concerning the substance; yet that which to 
the fathers was to come, is to us passed. And nevertheless 
the eating and drinking is all one, for neither the fathers 
did, nor we do eat carnally and corporally with our mouths, 
but both the fathers did, and we do eat spiritually by true 
and lively faith. The body of Christ was and is all one to 
the fathers and to us, but corporally and locally he was not 
yet bom unto them, and from us he is gone and ascended 
up into heaven. So that to neither he was, nor is carnally, 
substantially, and corporally present, but to them he was, 
and to us he is spiritually present, and sacramentally also, 
and of both sacramentally, spiritually, and efiectually eaten 
and drunken to eternal salvation and everlasting life. 
Tlie Mben And this is plainly enough declared in the Scripture, to 3 
Chri^t*8 ^h^°^ ^^^^ ^^^^ willing minds to understand the truth. For 
body and jj- jg written in the Old Testament, Ecclus. xxiv. in the per- 
hlood be- SOU of Christ thus. They that eat me ahaU yet hunger y and 
fore he was ^^ ^Airf drink me shall yet be thirsty. And St. Paul 
1 Cor.x. writeth to the Corinthians, saying. Our Jathers did aU eat 
the same spiritual meat ; and did aB drink the same spirit 
tual drink: and they drank of that spiritual Rock thatJbU 
lowed them : which Rock was Christ. These words St. Au- 
gustine expounding, saith ", *< What is to eat the same meat ? 
but that they did eat the same which we do. Whosoever 
in manna understood Christ, did eat the same spiritual 
^* meat that we do, that is to say, that meat which was re- 
*^ ceived with faith, and not with bodies. Therefore to them 
<^ that understood and believed, it was the same meat and 
<< the same drink. So that to such as understood not, the 
" meat was only manna, and the drink only water; but to 
<< such as understood, it was the same that is now. For 
^* then was Christ to come, who is now come. * To come,^ 

^ August. De Utilitate Pcmitentia, [The genuineness of this tract is 
doubtful. Cave, Htft. JJterJ] 



<< and * is come/ be divers words, but it is the same Christ.^ BOOK 
These be St. Augustine^s sayings. ^ 

And because you say^ that it is more agreeable to the 
Scripture to say that the fathers before Chrisf s nativity did 
not eat the body and drink the blood of Christ ; I pray you 
show me one Scripture that so saith; and show me also 
one approved author that disallowed St. Augustine^s mind 
by me here alleged, because you say that all do not agree to 
his understanding. And in the seventy-seventh Psalm St. Au- 
gustine saith also', ** The stone was Christ.^ Therefore the 
same was the meat and drink of the fathers in the mystery, 
which is ours^ but in signification the same, not in outward 
form ; for it is one Christ himself that to them was figured 
in the stone, and to us manifestly appeared in flesh. And 
St. Augustine saith plainly x, that both manna and our sacra- 
ment signifieth Christ, and that although the sacraments 
were divers, yet in the thing by them meant and under- 
stand they were both like. And so, after the mind of 
St. Augustine, it is clear that the same things were ^ven to 
the faithful recovers in the sacraments of the Old Testa- 
ment that be given in the New ; the same to them was cir- 
cumci^n, that to us is baptism ; and to them by manna was 
given the same thing, that now is given to us in the sacra- 
mental bread. 

And if I would grant for your pleasure, that in their 
5 sacraments Christ was promised, and that in ours he is really 
given, doth it not then follow as well that Christ is ^ven in 
the sacrament of baptism, as that he is given in the sacra- 
ment of his flesh and blood ? And St. Augustine Contra 
Fau$tum ' esteemeth them mad that think diversity between 
the things signified in the Old and New Testament, because 
the rigns be divers. And expressing the matter plainly, 
saith % that ** the flesh and blood of our sacrifice before 
** Chrisf s coming was promised by sacrifices of similitudes, 
'* in his passion was given in deed, and after his ascension is 
<* solemnly put in our memory by the sacrament."^ 

' AuguBtiD. Pfo/m. 77. 7 Augast. In Joan* tract. S6. 

*• August. Contra Famtum^ lib. 19. cap. 16. * lib. SO. cap. SI. 


BOOK And the thing which you say St. Augustine noteth to be 
'*^* ^ven in the sacraments of the New Testament, and to be 

promised in the sacraments of the Old, St. Augustine ex- 
presseth the thing which he meant, that is to say, salva- 
tion and eternal life by Christ ^. And yet in this mortal life 
we have not eternal life in possession, but in promise, as the 
Prophets had. But St. Augustine saith, that we have the 
promise, because we have Christ already come, which by the 
Prophets was promised before that he should come. And 
JuhD i. therefore St. John the Baptist was called more than a pro- 
phet because he said, here is the Lamb of God already pre- 
sent, which the Prophets taught us to look for until he 

The effect therefore of St. Augustine^s words plainly to 
be expressed was this, that the Prophets in the Old Testa- 
ment promised a Saviour to come and redeem the world, 
(which the sacraments of that time testified until his com- 
ing :) but now he is already come, and hath by his death 
performed that was promised, which our sacraments testify 
unto us, as St. Augustine declareth more phdnly in his book 
De Fide ctd Petrum^ the xixth chapter*^. So that St Augus- 
tine speaketh of the ^ving of Christ to death, (which the 
sacraments of the Old Testament testified to come, and ours 
testify to be done,) and not of the ^ving of him in the sacnu 

And forasmuch as St. Augustine spake generally of all 
the sacraments, therefore if you will by his words prove 
that Christ is corporally in the sacrament of the holy com- 
munion, you may as well prove that he is corporally in bap- 
tism ; for St. Augustine speaketh no more of the one than of 
the other. But where St. Augustine speaketh generally of 
all the sacraments, you restrain the matter particularly to 
the sacrament of the Lord's Supper only, that the ignorant 
reader should think that St. Augustine spake of the corpo- 
ral presence of Christ in the sacraments, and that only in 
the sacraments of bread and wine ; whereas St. Augustine 

^ August. In Fudm. 73. « August. De Fide ad Fetrum^ 

cap. 19. [A spurious work. Cave, Hut, Lit.'] 


himself speaketb only of our salvation by Christ, and of the BOOK 
sacraments in general. "^' 

And nevertheless, as the fathers had the same Christ and 
mediator that we have, as you here confess, so did they spi- 
ritually eat his flesh and drink his blood, as we do, and spi- 
ritually feed of him, and by faith he was present with them, 
as he is with us ; although carnally and corporally he was 
yet to come unto them, and from us is gone up to his Father 
into heaven. 

This, besides St Augustine, is plainly set out by Ber- Bertram. 
tram about six hundred years passed, whose judgment in 
this matter of the sacrament, although you allow not, (be- 
cause it utterly condemneth your doctrine therein ;) yet for- 
asmuch as hitherto his teaching was never reproved by none 
but by you alone ; and that he is commended of other as 
an excellent learned man in holy Scripture, and a notable 
famous man, as well in living as learning ; and that among 
his excellent works this one is specially praised, which 
he wrote of the matter of the sacrament of the body and 
blood of our Lord ; therefore I shall rehearse his teach- 
ing in this point, how the holy fathers and prophets before 
the coming of Christ did eat Chrisf s flesh and drink his 
blood. So that although Bertram^s saying be not esteemed 
with you, yet the indifierent reader may see what was 
written in this matter before your doctrine was invented. 
And although his authority be not received of you, yet his 
words may serve against Smith, who herein more learnedly Smyth, 
and with more judgment than you approveth this author. 
This is Bertram^s doctrine : " Saint Paul saith, that all the 
old fathers did eat the same spiritual meat^ and drink the 
same spiritual drink. But peradventure thou wilt ask, 
which the same ? Even the very same that Christian peo- 
ple do daily eat and drink in the Church. For we may 
'* not understand divers things, when it is one and the self 
<< same Christ, which in times past did feed with his flesh, 
*^ and made to drink of his blood, the people that were bap- 
^* tized in the cloud and sea in the wilderness, and which 
** doth now in the Church feed Christian people with the 



BOOK ** bread of his body, and giveth them to drink the flood of 
^^^* '* his blood. When he had not yet taken man^s nature 


** upon him, when he had not yet tasted death for the sal- 
** vation of the world, nor redeemed us with his blood, ne- 
** vertheless, even then our forefathers by spiritual meat 
*^ and invisible drink, did eat his body in the wilderness and 
*^ drink his blood, as the Apostle beareth witness, saying, 
^^ The same spirihial meaty the same spiritual drink. For 
^* he that now in the Church by his omnipotent power doth 
^^ spiritually convert bread and wine into the flesh of his 
body, and into the flood of his own blood, he did then in- 
visibly so work, that manna which came from heaven was 
his body, and the water his blood.*" Now by the things 
here by me alleged, it evidently appeareth, that this is no 
novelty of speech to say, that the holy fathers and prophets 
did eat Chrisfs flesh and drink his blood; for both the 
Scripture and old authors use so to speak, how much soever 
the speech mislike them that like no fashion of speech but 
their own. 
Jone of And what doth this further the pestilent heresy of Jone 6 

of Kent? Is this a good argument? The fathers did eat 
Chrises flesh and drink his blood spiritually before he was 
bom, ergOf after he was not corporally bom of his mother. 
Or because he was corporally bom, is he not therefore daily 
eaten spiritually of his faithful people ? Because he dwelt in 
the world corporally from his incarnation unto his ascension, 
did he not therefore spiritually dwell in his holy members 
before that time, and hath so done ever sithence, and will do 
to the world^s end ? Or if he be eaten in a figure, can you in- 
duce thereof that he was not bom without a figure? Do not 
such kind of arguments favour the error of Jone of Kent ? 
Yea, do they not manifestly approve her pestiferous heresy, 
if they were to be allowed ? What man that meaneth the 
truth, would bring in such manner of reasoning to deface 
the truth ? And yet it is not to be denied, but that Christ is 
truly eaten, as he was truly bom, but the one corporally and 
without figure, and the other spiritually and with a figure. 
Now foUoweth my eleventh comparison. 


** They say, that the body of Christ is every day many BOOK 

^ times made, as often as there be masses said, and that then '. — 

*' and there he is made of bread and wine. We say, that dJveMtli 
*^ Chrises body was never but once made, and then not of <^inpa- 
'^ the nature and substance of bread and wine, but of the 
^' substance of his blessed mother.^ 


Thb body of Christ is by God*s omnipotency, who so worketli 

in his word, made present unto us at sucli time as the Church 

a prayeth it may please him so to do, which prayer is ordered to be 

made in the Book of Common Prayer now set forth ^, Wherein The Book 

we require of God the creatures of bread and wine to be sancti-2f^™7*°" 

* rnycr in 

fied, and to be to us the body and blood of Christ, which they tbis realm. 
cannot be, unless God worketh it^ and make them so to be. In i^'^^oO 
I which mystery it was never taught, as this author willingly misre- 

3 porteth^ that Christ*s most precious body is made of the matter of Cbrist's 
bread, but in that order, exhibited and made present unto us, by ^^ *^ 
conversion of the substance of bread into his precious body ; not ment is not 
a new body made of a new matter of bread and wine, but a new UJUti^r of "* 
presence of the body that is never old, made present there, where bread. 

the substance of bread and wine was before. So as this compa- ^'5^*J 
rison of diflerence is mere wrangling, and so evident as it needeth 
no further answer but a note. Lo, how they be not ashamed to 
trifle in so great a matter, and without cause by wrong terms to 

4 bring the truth in slander, if it were possible. May not this be 
accounted as a part of God*s punishment, for men of knowledge 
to write to the people such matter seriously, as were not tolerable 
to be by a scoffer derised in a play, to supply when his fellow had 
forgotten his part. 

d [The book referred to is the first Service Book of Edward VI. in 
which the following clause occurs in the prayer of consecration : '* With 
** thv holy Spirit and word vouchsafe to bless and sanctify these thy 
** gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they may be unto us the 
** body and blood of thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ.'' To 
avoid such inferences as that which was liere and elsewhere drawn by 
Gardyner, the clause was altered in the second Service Book of Edward 
VI. to its present form. At the same time, and for the same reason, 
the words ** Take and eat,^ &c. were substituted at the delivery of the 
elements for the old expression, << The body of our Lord/' &c. On the 
accession of Elizabeth both were united in the form still in use.] 



BOOK Canterbury. 

' Christ is present whensoever the Church prayeth unto i 

him, and is gathered together in his name ; and the bread 

and wine be made unto us the body and blood of Christ, (as 

The Book it is in the Book of Common Prayer,) but not by changing 

Prayer. the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ^s 

natural body and blood, but that in the godly using of them 

they be unto the receivers Christ^s body and blood. As of 

some the Scripture saith, that their riches is their redemp- 

ProT. ziii. tion, and to some it is their damnation : and as God^s word 

I^- >• to some is life, to some it is death and a snare, as the pro* 

I Cor. i. i ^1 . 1 . li. . 

3 Cor. ii. phet saith : and Chnst hunself to some is a stone to stum- 
isiii.Tiii '^'^ ^^> ^^ wme is a raising from death; not by conversion 
Mattb. xzi. of substances, but by good or evil use, that thing which to 
John xi. ^^ S^y ^ salvation, to the ungodly is damnation : so is 
the water in baptism, and the bread and wine in the Lord'^s 
Supper, to the worthy receivers Christ himself and eternal 
life, and to the unworthy receivers everlasting death and 
damnation ; not by conversion of one substance into another, 
but by godly or ungodly use thereof. And therefore in the 
Book of the holy communion, we do not pray absolutely 
that the bread and wine may be made the body and blood 
of Christ, but that unto us in that holy mystery they may 
be so ; that is to say, that we may so worthily receive the 
same, that we may be partakers of Chrisfs body and blood, 
and that therewith in spirit and in truth we may be spiri- 
tually nourished. And a like prayer of old time were all 
the people wont to make at the communion, of all such of- 
ferings as at that time all the people used to offer, praying 
that their offerings might be unto them the body and blood 
of Christ c. 
^bcUier And where you say it was never taught as I say, that a 
Christ be Chrisf s body is made of the matter of bread, you knowingly 
^^ ^^ and willingly misreport me. For I say not, of the matter of 
bread, but of bread, which when you deny that the papists so 

^ Dominic. 3. pott Trinit, Secreta. ^ Mtinera tibi, Domine, qaibus ob- 
lata sanctifica, ut tui nobis UnigeDiti corpas et saneuis fiant ad mede- 
lam. [1580.] e k fi 


say, it aeemeth you be now ashamed of the doctrine, which BOOK 
the papists have taught this four or five hundred years. For !_ 

is it not plainly written of all the papists, both lawyers and 
acbool authors, that the body of Christ in the sacrament is 
made of bread, and his blood of wine ? aiid they say not that 
his body is made present of bread and wine, but is made 
of bread and wine. Be not their books in print ready to be 
showed ? Do they not say, that the substance of the bread 
neither remaineth still, nor is turned into nothing but into 
the body of Christ? And do not yourself also say here in 
this place, that the substance of bread is converted into 
Chrises precious body ? And what is that else but the body 
of Christ to be made of bread, and to be made anew of a 
new matter? For if the bread do not vanish away into 

3 nothing, but be turned into Chrisf s body, then is Cbrist^s 
body made of it; and then it must needs follow that 
Christ^s body is made new, and of another substance than it 
was made of in his mother^s womb ; for there it was made 
of her flesh and blood, and here it is made of bread and 
wine. And the papists say not (as you now would shift ofi^ 
the matter) that Christ's body is made present of bread, but 
they say plainly without addition that it is made of bread. 
Can you deny that this is the plain doctrine of the papists. 
Ex pane Jit corpiss ChrUtiy Of bread is made the body qf 
Christ f and that the substance of bread is turned into the 
substance thereof? And what reason, sentence, or English, 
could be in this saying: Christ''s body is made present of 
bread ? Mary, to be made present in bread might be some 
sentence, but that speech will you in no wise admit. 

And this your saying here ^f the reader mark it well) 
tumeth over quite and clean all the whole papistical doc- 
trine in this matter of the sacrament, as well touching tran- pugnatcam 
substantiation, as also the carnal presence : for their doc- <^!"; P^" 

.111 1 • r- l_ Pl«l»»' 

tnne, with one whole consent and agreement is this, that [1580.] 
the substance of bread remaineth not, but is turned into the 
substance of Chrises body, and so the body of Christ is 

4 made of it. But this is false, say you, and not tolerable to 
be by a scoffer devised in a play, to supply when his fellow 

L 2 


^?i? '^ had forgotten his part. And so the whole doctrine of the 

'- — papists, which they have taught these four or five hundred 

years, do you condemn with condign reproaches, as a teach- 
ing intolerable, not to be devised by a scofier in a play. Why 
do you then take upon you to defend the papistical doc- 
trine, if it be so intolerable ? Why do you not forsake those 
8Co£Pers and players, which have juggled with the world so 
long, and embrace the most certain truth, that Christ^s body 
is not made of bread ? And seeing that you embrace it here 
in this one place, why stand you not constantly therein, but 
go from it again in all the rest of your book, defending the 
papistical doctrine clean contrary to yours in this point, in 
that they teach that Christ'^s body is made of bread ? 

And you vary so much from yourself herein, that al- 
though you deny the papists^ saying in words, that Christ^s 
body is made of bread, yet in effect you grant and maintain 
the same, which you say is intolerable, and not to be de- 
vised by a scoffer in a play. For you say, that Christ call- 
eth bread his body, and that his calling is making; and 
then if he make bread his body, it must needs follow that 
Making |jg maketh his body of the bread. Moreover you say, that 

by coDver- '' . . 

sion. Christ^s body is made present by conversion or turning of 

the substance of bread into the substance of his precious 
body, whereof must also follow, that his body is made of 
bread. For whensoever one substance is turned into an- 
other substance, then the second is made of the first: as be- 
cause earth was turned into the body of Adam, we say that 
Adam was made of earth ; and that Eve was made of Adam'^s 
rib, and the wine in Galilee made of water, because the 
water was turned into wine, and the rib of Adam^s side into 

Gen. ii. the body of Eve. If the water had been put out of the 
pots, and wine put in for the water, we might have said that 
the wine had been made present there, where the water was 
before ; but then we might not have said, that the wine had 
been made of the water, because the water was emptied out 

^obnti. nii^ QQf. turned into the wine. But when Christ turned 
the water into the wine, then by reason of that turning 
we say, that the wine was made of the water. So like- 


wise, if the bread be turned into the substance of Chrisfs BOOK 

body, we must not only say that the body of Christ is pre- '. — 

sent where the bread was before, but also that it is made of 
the bread, because that the substance of the bread is con- 
verted and turned into the substance of his body. Which 
thing the papists saw must needs follow, and therefore they 
pl^nly confessed, that the body of Christ was made of bread, 
which doctrine, as you truly say in this place, is intolerable, 
and not to be devised by a scoffer in a play, when his fel- 
low had forgotten his part. And yet you so far forget your- 
self in this book, that throughout the same, whatsoever 
you say here, you defend the same intolerable doctrine, not 
to be devised by a scoffer. 

And where Smyth accounteth here my fourth lie^ that I Smyth. 
say that the papists say, that Chrisfs body is made of bread 
and wine ; here Smith and you agree both together in one 
lie. For it is truth and no lie, that the papists so say and 
teach, as Smith in other parts of his book saith, that Chrisfs 
body is made of bread, and that priests do make Chrisf s 
body. Now my twelfth comparison is this : 

They say, that the mass is a sacrifice satisfactory for 
sin^ by the devotion of the priest that offereth, and not by 
the thing that is offered. But we say, that their saying is 
a most heinous^ yea, and detestable error against the glory 
*^ of Christ. For the satisfaction for our sins is not the de- 
*^ votion nor offering of the priest; but the only host and sa- 
** tisfaction for all the sins of the world, is the death of 
Christ, and the oblation of his body upon the cross t hat 
is to say, the oblation that Christ himself offered once 
upon the cross, and never but once, nor never none but he. 
And therefore that oblation which the priests make daily 
in their papistical masses^ cannot be a satisfaction for other 
men^s sins, by the priest^s devotion ; but it is a mere illu- 
sion, and subtle craft of the Devil, whereby Antichrist 
hath many years blinded and deceived the world.**^ 



This comparison is out of the matter of the presence of Christ's 



BOOK most precious bod? in the sacrament, which presence, this author 


.in the first part of his comparison, seemeth by implication to 
grant, when he findeth fault that the priests* devotion should be 2 
a sacrifice satisftustory, and not the thing that is o£fered, which 
manner of doctrine I never read, and I think it myself it ought to 
be improved, if any such there be to make the devotion of the 
Christ is priest a satis&ction. For undoubtedly Christ is our satisfaction 3 
our satis- wholly and fully, who hath paid our whole debt to God the Father, 
[1580.] for the appeasing of his just wrath against us, and hath cancelled 
How Christ the bill obligatory (as St. Paul saith,) that was against us. For 
n^^8o 1 ' further opening whereof, if it be asked how he satisfied, we an- 
swer, as we be taught by the Scriptures, by the accomplishment of 
the will of his father, in his innocent suffering, his willing and 
obedient suffering the miseries of this worid without sin, and the 
violent persecution of the world, even to the death of the cross 
and shedding of his most precious blood. Wherein was perfected 
the willing sacrifice that he made of himself to God the Father for 
us, of whom it was written in the beginning of the book, that he 
should be the body and perfect accomplishment of all sacrifices, 
as of whom all other sacrifices before were shadows and figures. ' 
Christ's And here is to be considered how the obedient will in Christ*s 

71 ^9o 1 sacrifice b specially to be noted, who suffered because he would 3 
which St. Paul setteth forth in declaration of Christ's humility. 
And although that willing obedience was ended and perfected on 
the cross, to the which it continued from the beginning, by rea- 
son whereof the oblation is in St* Paul's speech attributed there- 
unto : yet, as in the sacrifice of Abraham when he offered Isaac, 
the earnest will of offering was accounted for the offering in deed • 
whereupon it is said in Scripture, that Abraham offered Isaac, and 
the declaration of the will of Abraham is called the offering : so 4 
the declaration of Christ*s will in his last supper, was an offering 
of him to God the Father, assuring there his Apostles of his will 
and determination, and by them all the world, that his body 
should be betrayed for them and us, and his precious blood shed 
for remission of sin, which his word he confirmed then with the 
gift of his precious body to be eaten, and his precious blood to be 
drunken. In which mystery he declared his body and blood to 
be the very sacrifice of the world, by him offered to God the Fa- 
ther, by the same will that he said his body should be betrayed 
for us : and thereby ascertained us that to be in him willing. 


that the Jews on the cross seemed to execute by violence and BOOK 

5 force against his will. And, thereforcr as Christ offered himself 

on the cross in the execution of the work of his will, so he offer- 
ed himself in his supper, in declaration of his will -, whereby we 
might be the more assured of the efiect of his death, which he 
suffered willingly and determinately for the redemption of the 
world, with a most perfect oblation and satisfiicUon for the sins of 
the world, exhibited and offered by him to God the Father, for the 
reconciliation of man's nature to God's favour and grace. 

6 And this I write because this author speaketh so precisely, how Christ's 
Christ offered himself never but once. Whereby, if he mean by ?^^ ''^®'^' 
once ofiering, the whole action of our redemption, which was con. [1580.] 
suramate and perfected upon the cross -, all must confess the sub- 
stance of that work of redemption, by the oblation of Christ's body 

on the cross, to have been absolutely finished, and so once offered 

7 for all. But there is no Scripture, whereupon we might conclude 
that Christ did in this mortal life but in one particular moment 

of time offer himself to his Father. For St. Paul describeth it to Phil. ii. 
the Fhilippians under the word of humiliation, to have continued 
the whole time of Christ's conversation here, even to the death, 

8 the death of the cross. And that this obedience to God in humi- 
lity is called offering, appeareth by St. Paul when he exhorted us Rom. xii. 
to offer our bodies, which meaneth a continual obedience in the 
observation of God*s will, and he calleth Oblationem gentium, to 

bring them to the faith. And Abraham's willing obedience, 
ready at God's commandment to offer Isaac^ is called the offering 
of Isaac, and is in very deed a true offering; and each man of- 
fereth himself to God when he yieldeth to God's caUing, and pre- 
senteth himself ready to do God's will and commandment^ who 
then may be said to offer his service, that is to say, to place 
bb service in sight and before him, before whom it should be 

And because our Saviour Christ, by the decree of the whole Tri- 
nity, took man's nature upon him, to suffer death for our redemp- 
tion, which deaths in his last supper, he declared plainly he would 

9 suffer : we read in St. Cyprian how Christ offered himself in his 
supper, fulfilling the figure of Melchisedech, who by the offering of 
bread and wine, signified that high mystery of Christ's supper, in 
which Christ under the form of bread and wine, gave his very 
body and blood to be eaten and drunken, and in the giving there- 



BOOK of, declared the determination of his glorious passion, and the 
^^^' fruit and effect thereof. Which doing was a sweet and pleasant 

oblation to God the Father, containing a most perfect obedience 
to God's will and pleasure. And in the mystery of this Supper 
was written, made, and sealed, a most perfect testimony, for an 
effectual memory of Christ's offering of himself to his Father, and 
of his death and passion, with the fruit thereof. And therefore lo 
Christ ordained this Supper, to be observed and continued for a 
memory to his coming : so as we that saw not with our bodily 
eves Christ*s death and passion, may in the celebration of the 
Supper, be most suredly ascertained of the truth out of Christ's 
own mouth. Who still speaketh in the person of the minister of 
the Church : This is my body thai is betrayed for you : This is my 
blood that is shed for you in remission of sin: and therewith maketh 
his very body truly present, and his precious blood truly present, 
to be taken of us, eaten and drunken. Whereby we may be as- 
sured, that Christ is the same to us, that he was to them, and 
useth us as familiarly as he did them, offereth himself to his 
Father for us as well as for them, declareth his will in the fruit of 
his death to pertain as well to us as to them. Of which death we 
be assured by his own mouth, that he suffered the same to the ef- 
fect he spake of; and by the continual feeding in this high mystery 
of the same very body that suffered, and feeding of it witliout con- 
sumption, being continually exhibite unto us a living body and 
lively blood, not only our soul is specially and spiritually comfort- 
ed, and our body thereby reduced to more conformable obedience 
to the soul, but also we, by the participation of this most precious 
body and blood, be ascertained of the resurrection and regene- 
ration of our bodies and flesh, to be by God's power made incor- 
ruptible and immortal, to live and have fruition in God with our 
soul for ever. 
Truths ' Wherefore, having this mystery of Christ's Supper so many 
liuked to- truths in it, the Church hath celebrate them all, and knowledged 
[1580.] them all of one certainty in truth, not as figures, but really in 
deed -, that is to say, as our body shall be in the general resurrec*' 
tion, regenerate in deed, so we believe we feed here of Christ's 
body in deed. And as it is true that Christ's body in deed is be- 
trayed for us, so it is true that he giveth us to eat his very body in 
deed. And as it is true that Christ was in earth and did cele- 
brate this Supper, so it is true that be commanded it to be cele- 


brate br us till he come. And as it is true that Christ was very God BOO K 


omnipotent, and very man, so it is true that he could do that he 
affirmed by his word himself to do. And as he is most sincere 
truth, so may we be truly assured that he would, and did as he 
said. And as it is true that he is most Just« so it is true that he 
assisteth the doing of his commandment in the celebration of the 
holy Supper. And therefore, as he is author of this most holy 
sacrament of hb precious body and blood, so is he the maker of 
it, and is the invisible priest, who, as Emissene saith, by hisEmisse- 
secret power, with his word, changeth the visible creatures into ^JlJ^st is 
the substance of his body and blood. Wherein man, the visi- the inirim- 
ble priest and minister by order of the Church, is only a dis- [its^i 
penser of the mystery, doing and saying as the Holy Ghost hath 
taught the Church to be done and said. 

Finally, as we be taught by fiiith all these to be true, so when i Cor. iv. 
wanton reason, faith being asleep, goeth about by curiosity to 
impair any one of these truths, the chain is broken, the links 
sparkle abroad, and all is brought in danger to be scattered and 
scambled at. Truths have been abused, but yet they be true as 
they were before : for no man can make that is true finlse, and 
abuse is man*s fault and not the things*. Scripture in speech 
giveth to man, as God's minister, the name of that action which 
God specially worketh in that ministry. So it pleaseth God to 
honour the ministry of man in his Church, by whom it also 
pleaseth him to work effectually. And Christ said. They that be- Errors. 
Ueoe in me shall do the works that I do, and greater. When all ?°* ^^^^' 
this honour is given to man, as spiritually to r^nerate, when the Christ, not 
minister saith, * I baptize thee,* and to remit sin to such as fall ?*^i 
after, to be also a minister in consecration of Christ's most pre- 
cious body, with the ministration of other sacraments, benediction, 
and prayer : if man should then wax proud, and glory as of him- 
self, and extol his own devotion in these ministries, such men 
should bewray their own naughty hypocrisy, and yet thereby im- 
pair not the very dignity of the ministry, ne the very true fruit 
and effect thereof. And therefore, when the Church by the mi- 
nister prayeth that the creatures of bread and wine set on the 
altar, (as the Book of Common Prayer in this realm hath order- 
ed,) may be unto us the body and blood of our Saviour Christ ; 
we require then the celebration of the same supper which Christ 
made to his Apostles, for to be the continual memory of his 




I John. 11. 



The whole 
Charch by 
the miDis- 

death, with all ftuit and efifect, such as the same had ia the first 
. institution. 

Wherefore, when the minister pronounceth Christ's words as 
spoken of his mouth, it is to be beliered that Christ doth now as 
he did then. And it is to be noted, that although in the sacra- 
ment of bapdsm the minister saith, ' I baptize thee,* yet in the 
celebration of this Supper, the words be spoken in Christ's person, 
as saying himself. This u my body that is broken for you^ which 
is to us not only a memory, but an efiectital memory with the 
very presence of Christ's body and blood, our very sacrifice ; who, 1 1 
doing now as he did then, ofilereth himself to his Father as he did 
then, not to renew that offering as though it were imperfect, but 
continually to refresh us, that daily fall and decay. And, as St. 
John saith, Christ is our advocate and entreateth for us, or plead- 
eth for us ; not to supply any want on God*s behalf, but to re- 
lieve our wants in edification, wherein the ministry of the Church 
travaileth to bring man to perfection in Christ, which Christ him- 
self doth assist and absolutely perform in his Church, his mysti- 
cal body. Now when we have Christ's body thus present in the 
celebration of the holy Supper, and by Christ's mouth present 
unto us, saying, 7%u u my body which is betrayed for you ; then 
have we Christ's body recommended unto us as our sacrifice, and 
a sacrifice propitiatory for all the sins of the world, being the only 
sacrifice of Christ's Church, the pure and clean sacrifice, whereof 
the prophet Malachie spake, and whereof the lathers in Christ's 
Church have since the beginning continually written; the very 
true presence whereof, most constantly believed, hath increased 
from time to time such ceremonies as have been used in the cele- 
bration of that Supper, in which, by Christ's own mouth, we be 
ascertained of his most glorious death and passion ; and the self- 
same body that suflfered, delivered unto us in mystery to be eaten 
of us, and therefore so to be worshipped and acknowledged of us 
as our very only sacrifice, in whom, by whom, and for whom, our 
other private gifts and sacrifices be acceptable, and none other- 

And therefore, as Christ declareth in the Supper himself an 3 
offering and sacrifice for our sin, offering himself to his Father as 
our mediator, and so therewith recommendeth to his Father the 
Church his body, for which he suflfereth : so the Church at the same 
Supper, in their offering of lauds and thanks, with such other 


gift! as they have received fix^m God, join themselves with their BOOK 
head Christ, presenting and ofiering him, as one by whom^ for 

whom, and in whom, ail that by God's grace man can do well, is ter, the 
available and acceptable, and without whom nothing by us done fenstfa 
can be pleasant in the sight of God. Whereupon this persuasion ^lurist pre- 
hath been truly conceived, which is also in the Book of Common sacrifice 
Prayer, in the celebration of the holy Supper retained, that it is propitia- 
very profitable at that time, when the memory of Christ's death is irherein is 
solemnized, to remember with prayer all estates of the Church, and J**®JJf^ ®"'' 
to recommend them to God, which St. Paul to Timothy seemeth death. 
to require. At which time, as Christ signifieth unto us the cer- ^^^-i., 
tainty of his death, and giveth us to be eaten, as it were in pledge, 
the same his precious body that suffered ; so we, for declaration of 
our confidence in that death and sacrifice, do kindly remember 
with thanks his special gifts, and charitably remember the rest of 
the members of Christ's Church with prayer ; and as we are able, 
should with our bodily goods remember, at that time specially, to 
relieve such as have need by poverty. And again, as Christ put- 
teth us in remembrance of his great benefit, so we should 
.thoroughly remember him for our part, with the true confession 
of this mystery, wherein is recapitulate a memorial of all gifts 
and mysteries that God in Christ hath wrought for us. In the 
consideration and estimation whereof, as there hath been a fault 
in the security of such, as so their names were remembered in 
this holy time of memory, they cared not how much they forgat 
themselves; so there may be a fault in such, as neglecting it, care 
not whether they be remembered there at all, and therefore would 
have it nothing but a plain eating and drinking. How much the 
remembrance in prayer may avail, no man can prescribe, but that 
it avtuleth every Christian man must confess. Man may nothing 
arrogate to his devotion -, but St. James said truly, Multum valet James v. 
oraHojusti asddua. It is to be abhorred to have hypocrites that 
counterfeit devotion, but true devotion is to be wished of God and 
prayed for, which is God*s gift ; not to obscure his glory, but to 
set it forth ; not that we should then trust in men's merits and 
prayers, but laud and glorify God in them, 91a talem potestatem 
dedU hommbtu^ none to be Judged able to relieve another with his 
prayer, referring all to proceed from God, by the mediation of our 
Saviour and Redeemer Jesus Christ. I have tarried long in this 
matter, to dechire that for the efiect of all celestial or worldly 


BOOK gifts to be obtaiDed of God in the celebration of Christ's holy 
Supper, when we call it the communion, is now prayed for to be 

present, and is present, and with God*s favour shall be obtained, 
if we devoutly, reverently, charitably, and quietly use and frequent 
the same without other innovations than the order of the Book 
prescribeth. Now to the last diflference. 

How is this comparison out of the matter of the presence < 
of Christ^s most precious body in the sacrament, when the 
papists say, that the mass is not a sacrifice propitiatory, but 
because of the presence of Chrisf s most precious body being 
presently there? And yet if this comparison be out of the 
matter, as you say it is, why do you then wrestle and wran- 
gle with it so much ? And do I seem to grant the presence of 
Chrisf s body in the first part of my comparison^ when I do 
nothing there but rehearse what the papists do say ? But be- 
cause all this process (which you bring in here out of tune 
and time) belongeth to the last book, I will pass it over unto 
the proper place, only by the way touching shortly some 
notable words. 
Whctlier Although you never read that the oblation of the priest is 2 
Mti^actory satisfactory by devotion of the priest, yet nevertheless the 
by tbe de- papists do SO teach, and you may find it in their St. Thomas, 
tiie priest ^^ ^Q ^is Sum, and upon the fourth of the Sentences, whose 
works have been read in the universities almost this three hun- 
dred years, and never until this day reproved by any of the 
papists in this point. He saith, ^^ Quod sacrificium sacer- 
^^ dotis habet vim satisfactivam, sed in satisfactione magis 
^^ attenditur afiPectus o£Perentis, quam quantitas oblationis. 
^^ Ideo satisfactoria est illis pro quibus offertur, vel etiam of- 
^^ ferentibus^ secundum quantjtatem suae devotionis, et non 
" pro tota poena^.^ 

But here the reader may see in you, that the adversaries 3 
of the truth sometime be enforced to say. the truth, al- 
though sometime they do it unawares, as Cayphas prophe- 
sied the truth, and as you do here confess, that Christ is our 
satisfaction wholly and fully. 

*" Tho. part. 3. q. 79. art. 5. 


And yet the reader may note your inconstancy; for af> BOOK 
terward in the last book you give Christ such a nip, that of _L- 

that whole satisfaction you pinch half away from him, and 
ascribe it to the sacrifice of the priest, as I shall more fully 
declare in my answer to the last book. For you say there, 
that the sacrifice of Christ giveth us life, and that the sacri* 
fice of the priest continueth our life. 
4 And here, good reader, thou art to be warned, that this 
writer in this place goeth about craftily to draw thee from 
the very work of our full redemption, wrought by our Sa- 
viour Christ upon the cross, unto a sacrifice, as they say, 
made by him the night before at his last supper. And for* 
asmuch as every priest, as the papists say, maketh the same 
sacrifice in his mass, therefore consequently it foUowcth by 
this writer, that we must seek our redempUon at the priests 
sacrifice. And so Christ^s blessed passion, which he most 
obediently and willingly sufiered for our salvation upon the 
cross, was not the only and sufficient sacrifice for remission 
of our sins. 

The only will, I grant, both in good things and evil, isTbedecla- 
accepted or rejected before God, and sometime hath the Q||^J['g ^| 
name of the fact, as the will of Abraham to oiFer his son is to die, was 
called the oblation of his son; and Christ called him auficepropi-' 
adulterer in his hearty that derireth another mane's wife, al-^^^^'7^*^'' 
though there be no fact committed in deed. Heb. zi. 

And yet Abraham'^s will alone was not called the oblaUon q "^^' J^ 
of his son, but his will declared by many facts and circum- 
stances ; for he carried his son three days^ journey to the 
place where God had appointed him to slay and ofier his son 
Isaac, whom he most entirely loved. He cut wood to make 
the fire for that purpose ; he laid the wood upon his son^s 
back, and made him to carry the same wood wherewith he 
should be brent. And Abraham himself, commanding his 
servants to tarry at the foot of the hill, carried the fire and 
sword, wherewith he intended^ as God had commanded, to 
kill his own son, whom he so dearly loved. And by the 
way as they went, his son said unto his father, Faiher, see * 
here tajire and tvood, but where is the sacrifice that must be 


BOOK cross ; yet he calleth not every humiliation of Christ a sa- 
crifioe and oblation for remission of sin^ but only his obla- 
tion upon Good Friday; which, as it was our perfect re- 
demption, so was it our perfect reconciliation, propitiation, 
and satisfaction for can. And to what purpose you make 
here a long process of our sacrifices of obedience unto God^s 
commandments, I cannot devise ; for I declare in my last 
book, that all our whole obedience unto God's will and 
commandments is a sacrifice acceptable to God, but not 
a sacrifice propitiatory ; for that sacrifice Christ only made, 
and by that his sacrifice all our sacrifices be acceptable to 
God, and without that none is acceptable to him. And by 
those sacrifices all Christian people ofier themselves to Grod, 
but they ofier not Christ again for sin, for that did never 
creature, but Christ himself alone, nor he never but upon 
Grood Friday. For although he did institute the night before 
a remembrance of his death under the sacraments of bread 
and wine, yet he made not at that time the sacrifice of our 
redemption and satisfaction for our sins, but the next day 

And the declaration of Christ at his last supper, that he 
would sufier death, was not the cause wherefore Cyprian 
said, that Christ offered himself in his supper; for I read 9 
not in any place of Cyprian, to my remembrance, any such 
words, that Christ offered himself in his supper, but he saith 
that Christ offered the same thing which Melchisedech of- 
fered S, And if Cyprian say in any place, that Christ offered 
himself in his supper, yet he said not that Christ did so for 
this cause, that in his supper he declared his death. And 
therefore here you make a deceitful^/SiSaar in sophistry, pro- 
tending to show that thing to be a cause which is not the 
true cause in deed. For the cause why Cyprian and other 
old authors say, that Christ made an oblation and offering 
of himself in his last supper, was not that he declared there, 
that he would suffer death, for that he had declared many 
times before ; but the cause was, that there he ordained a 
perpetual memory of his death, which he would all faithful 

s CyprianuBy lib. 2. ep. 3. 


Christian people to observe from time to time, remembering BOOK 

his death with thanks for his benefits, until his coming L. 

again. And therefore the memorial of the true sacrifice 
made upon the cross, as St. Augustine saith ^, is called by the 
name of a sacrifice ; as a thing that signifieth another thing 
is called by the name of the thing which it signifieth, al- 
though in very deed it be not the same. 

And the long discourse that you make of Christ'^s true 
lo presence, and of the true eating of him, and of his true as- 
risting us in our doing of his commandment, all these be 
true. For Christ^s flesh and blood be in the sacrament truly 
present, but spiritually and sacramentally, not carnally and 
corporally. And as he is truly present, so is he truly eaten 
and drunken, and assisteth us ; and he is the same to us, that 
he was to them that saw him with their bodily eyes. But 
where you say that he is as familiar with us as he was with 
them, here I may say the French term which they use for 
reverence sake. Save vostre grace. And he offered not 
himself then for them upon the cross, and now offereth him- 
self for us diuly in the mass ; but upon the cross he offered 
himself both for us and for them. For that his one sacri- 
fice of his body then only offered, is now unto us by faith 
as available as it was then for them. For with one sacrifice^ 
as St. Paul saith, he hath made perfect Jbr ever them thai be Heb. x. 

And where you speak of the participation of Christ''s flesh 
and blood, if you mean of the sacramental participation 
only, that thereby we be ascertained of our regeneration of 
our bodies, that they shall live and have the fruition of Grod 
with our souls for ever, you be in an horrible error. And 
if you mean a spiritual participation of Chrisf s body and 
blood, then all this your process is in vain, and serveth 
nothing for your purpose, to prove that Christ's flesh and 
blood be corporally in the sacrament, under the forms of 
bread and wine, and participated of them that be evil, as 
you teach, which be no whit thereby the more certain of 
their salvation, but of their damnation, as St. Paul saith. i Cor. zi. 

^ August. Ad Bonifaciumy epist. 93. 


BOOK And although the holy Supper of the Lord be not a vain 
"^' or fantastical supper, wherein things should be promised 

which be not performed, to them that worthily come there- 
unto ; but Chrisfs flesh and blood be there truly eaten and 
drunken in deed, yet that mystical Supper cannot be with- 
out mysteries and figures. And although we feed in deed 
of Christ's body and drink in deed his blood, yet not cor* 
porally, quantitatively, and palpably, as we shall be r^;ene- 
rated at the resurrection, and as he was betrayed, walked 
here in earth, and was very man. And therefore, although 
the things by you rehearsed be all truly done, yet all be not 
done after one sort and fashion, but some corporally and vi- 
sibly, some spiritually and invisibly. And therefore, to all 
your comparisons or similitudes here by you rehearsed, if 
there be given to every one his true understanding, they 
may be so granted all to be true. But if you will link all 
these together in one sort and fashion, and make a chain 
thereof, you shall far pass the bonds of wanton reason, 
making a chain of gold and copper together, confounding 
and mixing together corporal and spiritual, heavenly and 
earthly things, and bring all to very madness and impiety, 
or plain and manifest heresy. 
A chain of And because one single error pleaseth you not, shortly u 
errora. ^^^ ^^^ jj^j^ ^ number of errors together almost in one 

sentence, as it were to make an whole chain of errors, saying 
not only, that Christ^s body is verily present in the celebra- 
tion of the holy Supper, meaning of corporal presence, but 
that it is also our very sacrifice, and sacrifice propitiatory 
for all the ans of the world, and that it is the only sacrifice 
of the Church, and that it is the pure and clean sacrifice, 
Malac i. whereof Malachy spake, and that Christ doth now in the 
celebration of this Supper as he did when he gave the same 
to his Apostles, and that he ofiereth himself now as he did 
then, and that the same ofiering is not now renewed again. 
This is your chain of errors, wherein is not one link of pure 
gold, but all be copper, feigned and counterfeit. For neither 
is Chrisf s body verily and corporally present in the celebra- 
tion of his holy Supper, but spiritually. Nor his body is 


not the very sacrifice, but the thing whereof the sacrifice BOOK 

was made, and the very sacrifice was the crucifying of his "^' 

body and the effusion of his blood unto death. Wherefore 

of his body was not made a sacrifice propitiatory for all the 

sins of the world at his supper, but the next day after upon 

the cross. Therefore saitb the prophet, that we were made Esay. liii. 

whcie by his nnmndSf Livore ejtis sanati sumtcs. 

Nor that sacrifice of Christ in the celebration of the 
Supper, is not the only sacrifice of the Church, but all the 
works that Christian people do to the glory of God, be sa- 
crifices of the Church, smelling sweetly before God. And 
they be also the pure and clean sacrifice whereof the prophet 
Malachic did speak. For the prophet Malachie spake of no 
such sacrifices as only priests make, but of such sacrifice as 
all Christian people make, both day and night, at all times, 
and in all places. 

Nor Christ doth not now as he did at his last supper 
which he had with his Apostles ; for then, as you say, he de- 
clared his will, that he would die for us. And if he do now 
as he did then, then doth he now declare that he will die for 
us again. 

But as for offering himself now as he did then, this speech 
may have a true sense, being like to that which sometime 
was used at the admission of unlearned friars and monks 
unto their degrees in the universities : where the doctor that 
presented them deposed, that they were meet for the said 
degrees, as well in learning as in virtue. And yet that de- 
position in one sense was true, when in deed they were meet 
neither in the one nor in the other. So likewise in that 
sense Christ offereth himself now as well as he did in his 
supper, for in deed he offered himself a sacrifice propitiatory 
for remission of sin in neither of both, but only upon the 
cross, making there a sacrifice full and perfect for our re- 
demption, and yet by that sufiident offering made only at 
that time, he is a daily intercessor for us to his Father for Heb. Tii. 
ever. Finally, it is not true that the offering in the cele- 
bration of the Supper is not renewed again. For the same 
offering that is made in one Supper is daily renewed and 



BOOK made again in every Supper, and is called the daily sacrifice 
"^' of the Church. 

Thus have I broken your chain and scattered your links, 
which may be called the very chain of Belzebub, able to 
draw into hell as many as come within the compass thereof. 
And how would you require that men should ^ve you 
credit, who within so few lines knit together so many mani- 
fest lies ? It is another untruth also which you say after, 
that Christ declared in the supper himself an offering and 
sacrifice for sin ; for he declared in his Supper, not that he 
was then a sacrifice^ but that a sacrifice should be made 
of his body, which was done the next day after by the vo- 
luntary effusion of his blood. And of any other sacrificing 
of Christ for sin, the Scripture speaketh not. For although 
the Scripture saith, that our Saviour Christ is now a con- 
tinual intercessor for us unto his Father, yet no Scripture 
calleth that intercession a sacrifice for sin, but only the effu- 
sion of his blood, which it seemeth you make him to do still, 
when you say that he suffereth ; and so by your imagination 
he should now still be crucified^ if he now suffer, as you say 
he doth. But it seemeth, you pass not greatly what you 
say, so that you may multiply many gallant words to the 
admiration of the hearers. But forasmuch as you say, that 
Christ offereth himself in the celebration of the Supper, and 
also that the Church offereth him, here I would have you 
declare, how the Church offereth Christ, and how he offer- 
eth himself, and wherein those offerings stand, in words, 
deeds, or thoughts, that we may know what you mean by 
your daily offering of Christ. Of offering ourselves unto 
God in all our acts and deeds with lauds and thanksgiving, 
the Scripture maketh mention in many places: but that 
Christ himself in the holy communion, or that the priests 
make any other oblation than all Christian people do, 
because these be papistical inventions without Scripture, I 
require nothing but reason of you, that you should so 
plainly set out these devised offerings, that men might 
plainly understand what they be, and wherein they rest. 
Now in this comparison, truth it is, as you say, that you 




have spent many words, but utterly in vain, not to declare, book 
but to darken the matter. But if you would have followed '^'' 
the plain words of the Scripture, you needed not in deed to 
have tarried so long, and yet should you have made the 
matter more clear a great deal. 
Now folio weth my last comparison. 

** They say, that Christ is corporally in many places at The thir- 
" one time, affirming that his body is corporally and really *^?^*^®™" 
" present in as many places as there be hosts consecrated. 
We say, that as the sun corporally is ever in heaven, and 
no where else ; and yet by his operation and virtue the 
sun is here in earth, by whose influence and virtue all 
*^ things in the world be corporally regenerated, increased, 
^^ and grow to their perfect state ; so likewise our Saviour 
Christ bodily and corporally is in heaven, sitting at the 
right hand of his Father, although spiritually he hath 
promised to be present with us upon earth unto the 
^' world's end. And whensoever two or three be gathered 
" tc^ther in his name, he is there in the midst among 
<* them, by whose supernal grace all godly men be first by 
'^ him spiritually regenerated, and after increase and grow 
'^ to their spiritual perfection in God,' spiritually by faith 
eating his flesh and drinking his blood, although the same 
corporally be in heaven, far distant from our sight.*" 


The true teaching is, that Christ's very body is present under Really, 
the form of bread in as many hosts as be consecrate, in bow J-j^if^JlTuiy 
many places soever tbe hosts be consecrate, and is there really corporally, 
and substantially, which words really and substantially be implied, ^'^ ^'■' 
when we say, truly present. The word corporally may have an 
ambiguity and doubleness in respect and relation. One is to the 
truth of the body present, and so it may be said, Christ is corpo- 
rally present in the sacrament ; but if the word corporally be re- 
ferred to the manner of the presence, then we should say, Christ's Manner of 
body were present after a corporal manner, which we say not, P'*^"^^. 
but in a spiritual manner, and therefore not locally nor by manner 
of quantity, but in such a manner as God only knoweth, and yet 

M 3 



BOOK dotb us to understand by fieiith the truth of the very presence, ex- 

*^^' ceeding our capacity to comprehend the manner " how.*' This 

The true is the very true teaching to affirm the truth of the presence of 

simple doc Q|||^3).*g very body in the sacrament, even of the same body that 
tnne of the "^ "^ . ^ 

presence of suffered, m plain, simple, evident terms and words, such as cannot 

^^^^*' . by cavillation be mistaken and construed, so near as possibly 

sacraments. man*8 infirmity permitteth and sufifereth. 

[1580.] Now let us consider in what sort the author and his company 

which he calleth, ' we say,* do understand the sacrament 3 who go 

about to express the same by a similitude of the creature of the 

God'smys- sun, which sun, this author saith, is ever corporally in heaven, 3 

^^^ and no where else, and yet by operation and virtue is here in 

roughly earth : so Christ is corporally in heaven, &c. In this matter of 

^/^?p^ ^J similitudes, it is to be taken for a truth undoubted, that there is 
similitudes. ... 

[1580.] no creature by similitude, ne any language of man, able to express 
God and his mysteries : for and things that be seen or heard, 
might thoroughly express God*s invisible mysteries, the nature 
whereof is that they cannot thoroughly be expressed, they were no 
mysteries ; and yet it is tnie, that of things visible, wherein God 
worketh wonderfully, there may be some resemblances, some 
shadows, and as it were inductions, to make a man astonied in 
consideration of things invisible ; when he seeth things visible so 
wonderfully wrought, and to have so marvellous effects. And di- 
vers good catholic devout men have by divers natural things gone 
about to open unto us the mystery of the Trinity, partly by the 
sun, as this author doth in the sacrament, partly by fire, partly by 
the soul of man, by the musician's science, the art, the touch with 
the player*s fingers, and the sound of the cord, wherein when wit 
hath all travailed the matter, yet remaineth dark, ne cannot be 
thoroughly set forth by any similitude. But to the purpose of 
this similitude of the sun, which sun this author saith is only 
corporally in heaven, and no where else, and in the earth the 
operation and virtue of the sun : so as by this author's sup- 
posal, the substance of the sun should not be in earth, but only 
by operation and virtue : wherein if this author erreth, he doth 
the reader to understand, that if he err in consideration of natu- 
ral things, it is no marvel though he err in heavenly things. 
For because I will not of myself begin the contention with this 
author of the natural work of the sun, I will bring forth the say- 

Bucenis. ing of Martin Bucer now resident at Cambridge, who vehemently. 



and for so much truly, affirmeth the true real presence of Christ's BOOK 
body in the sacrament: for he saith, Christ said not. This is ^^^' 
my spirit. This is my virtue, but. This is my body: wherefore, 
he saith, we must believe Christ's body to be there, the same 
that did hang upon the cross, our Lord himself; which in some 
part to declare, he useth the similitude of the sun for his purpose, 
to prove Christ's body present really and substantially in the sa- 
crament, where this author useth the same similitude to prove the 
body of Christ really absent. I will write in here as Bucer speak- 
eth it in Latin, expounding the xxvith chapter of Matthew, 
and then I will put the same in English. Bucers words be 

Ut sol vere uno in loco coeli visibilis circumscriptus est, ra- 
diis tamen suis preesens vere et substantialiter exhibetur ubilibet 
" orbis : ita Dominus edam si circumscribatur uno loco coeli, 
'* arcani et divini, id est gloriae Patris, verbo tamen suo, et sacris 
" symbolis, vere et totus ipse Deus et homo prsesens exhibetur in 
*' sacra Ccena, eoque substantialiter : quam praesentiam non minus 
" certo agnoscit mens credens verbis his Domini et symbolis, 
" quam oculi vident et habent solem prsesentem demonstratum 
" et exhibitum sua corporal! luce. Res ista arcana est, et Novi 
" Testamenti, res €dei 3 non sunt igitur hue admittendae cogita- 
tiones de prsesentatione corporis, qu» constat ratione hujus vitse 
etiaronum patibilis et fluxse. Verbo Domini simpliciter inhae- 
" rendum est, et debet fides sensuum defectui prsebere supplement 
" tum." Which is thus much in English. " As the sun is truly 
** placed detenninately in one place of the visible heaven, and yet 
** is truly and substantially present by means of his beams else- 
'* where in the world abroad : so our Lord, although he be com- 
" prehended in one place of the secret and divine heaven, that is 
" to say, the glory of his Father, yet nevertheless by his word and 
*' holy tokens, he is exhibite present truly, whole God and man, 
** and therefore in substance, in his holy Supper, which presence 
'* man's mind giving credit to his words and tokens with no less 
«• certainty acknowledgeth, than our eyes see and have the sun 
present exhibite and showed with his corporal light. This is 
a deep secret matter, and of the New Testament, and a matter 
'* of faith, and therefore herein thoughts be not to be received of 
*' such a presentation of the body, as consisteth in the manner of 
'* this life transitory and subject to suffer. We must simply cleave 

M 4 



BOOK ** to the word of Christ, and faith must relieve the default of our 

" senses *.'* 

Thus hath Bucer expressed his mind, whereunto because the 
similitude of the sun doth not answer in all parts, he noteth wisely 
in the end how this is a matter of f&ith, and therefore upon the foun- 
dation of faith we must speak of it, thereby to supply where our 
senses fail. For the presence of Christ, and whole Christ, God 
and man, is true, although we cannot think of the manner *' how/* 
The chief cause why I bring in Bucer is this, to show how in his 
judgment we have not only in earth the operation and virtue of 
the sun, but also the substance of the sun, by mean of the sun- 
beams, which be of the same substance with the sun, and cannot 
be divided in substance from it, and therefore we have in earth 
the substantial presence of the sun, not only the operation and 
virtue. And howsoever the sun above in the distance appeareth 
unto us of another sort, yet the beams that touch the earth be of 
the same substance with it, as clerks say, or at the least as Bucer 
saith, whom I never heard accounted papist, and yet for the real 
and substantial presence of Christ's very body in the sacrament, 
writeth pithily and plainly, and here encountereth this author 
with his similitude of the sun directly -, whereby may appear how 
much soever Bucer is esteemed otherwise, he is not with this au- 3 
thor regarded in the truth of the sacrament, which is one of the 
high mysteries in our religion. And this may suffice for that 
point of the similitude. Where this author would have Christ none 
otherwise present in the sacrament, than he promised to be in the 
assembly of such as be gathered together in his name, it is a plain 
abolition of the mystery of the sacrament, in the words whereof 
Christ's human body is exhibite and made present with his very 
flesh to feed us -, and to that singular and special effect which in 
the other presence of Christ in the assembly made in his name 
is not spoken of, and it hath no appearance of learning in Scrip- 
tures to conclude under one consideration a speciality and a 
generality. And therefore it was well answered of him that said, 

• If I could tell reason, there were no faith "^ ; if I could show the 

* like, it were not singular :* which both be not able in this sacra- 
ment, where, condemning all reason, good men both constantly 
believe that Christ sitteth on the right hand of his Father, very 

^ Bucerus, In Matth. cap. 26. [See above, p. 54.] 
^ August. Serm, De Tempore, 159. 


God and roan, and also without change of place doth neverthe- fioOK 
less make himself by his power present^ both God and man, under ^^^- 
the form of bread and wine, at the prayer of the Church and by 
the ministry of the same, to give life to such as with faith do ac- 
cording to his institution in his holy Supper worthily receive him, 
and to the condemnation of such as do unworthily presume to 
receive him there. For the worthy receiving of whom we must 
4 come endued with Christ, and clothed with him seemly in that 
garment, to receive his most precious body and blood, Christ 
whole God and man ; whereby he then dwelleth in us more abun- 
dantly, confirming in us the effects of his passion, and establishing 
our hope of resurrection, then to enjoy the regeneration of our 
body with a full redemption of body and soul, to live with God in 
glory for ever. 


I In this comparison I am glad that at the last we be come A concord 
so near together, for you be almost right heartily welcome J?^j,^pJ^" 
home, and I pray you let us shake hands. For we beMoce. 
agreed, as me seemeth, that Christ^s body is present, and the 
same body that suffered: and we be agreed also of the 
manner of his presence. For you say that the body of 
Christ is not present but after a spiritual manner, and so 
say I also. And if there be any difference between us two, 
it is but a little, and in this point only; that I say that 
Christ is but spiritually in the ministration of the sacrament, 
and you say, that he is but after a spiritual manner in the 
sacrament And yet you say, that he is corporally in the 
sacrament, as who should say that there were a difference 
between spiritually, and a spiritual manner: and that it 
were not all one to say, that Christ is there only after a spi- 
ritual manner, and only spiritually. 

3 But if the substance of the sun be here corporally present The pre- 
with us upon earth, then I grant that Chrisfs body is 8o»«"ce®f ^**<' 
likewise. So that he of us two that erreth in the one, let 
him be taken for a vain man, and to err also in the other. 
Therefore I am content that the reader judge indifferently 
between you and me in the corporal presence of the sun ; 
and he that is found to err, and to be a fool therein, let 


BOO K him be judged to err also in the corporal presence of Christ'^s 
"'• body. 

M. Bucer. But now, Master Bucer, help this man at need : for he 
that hath ever hitherto cried out against you, now being at 
a pinch driven to his shifts, crieth for help upon you. And 
although he was never your friend, yet extend your charity 
to help him in his necessity. But Master Bucer saith not 
so much as you do, and yet if you both said, that the beams 
of the sun be of the same substance with the sun, who would 
believe either of you both ? Is the light of the candle the 
substance of the candle ? or the light of the fire the sub- 
stance of the fire ? or is the beams of the sun any thing but 
the clear light of the sun ? Now as you said even now of 
me. If you err so far from the true judgment of natural 
things, that all men may perceive your error, what marvel 
is it, if you err in heavenly things ? 

And why should you be offended with this my saying, 3 
that Christ is spiritually present in the assembly of such as 
be gathered together in his name ? And how can you con- 
clude hereof, that this is a plun abolition of the mystery of 
the sacrament, because that in the celebration of the sacra- 
ment I say, that Christ is spiritually present ? Have not you 
confessed yourself, that Christ is in the sacrament but after 
a spiritual manner ? And after that manner he is also among 
them that be assembled together in his name. And if they 
that say so, do abolish the mystery of the sacrament, then 
do you abolish it yourself, by saying, that Christ is but 
after a spiritual manner in the sacrament, (after which man- 
ner you say also, that he is in them that be gathered to- 
gether in his name,) as well as I do that say, he is spiritually 
in both. But he that is disposed to pick quarrels, and to 
calumniate all things, what can be spoken so plainly or 
meant so sincerely, but he will wrest it into a wrong sense ? 
I say that Christ is spiritually and by grace in his Supper, as 
he is when two or three be gathered together in his name, 
meaning that with both he is spiritually, and with neither 
corporally. And yet I say not, that there is no difference. 
For this difference there is, that with the one he is sacra> 


mentally, and with the other not sacramentally, except they BOOK 
be gathered together in his name to receive the sacrament. ^^^' 
Nevertheless the selfsame Christ is present in both, nourish- 
eth and feedeth both, if the sacrament' be rightly received. 
But that is only spiritually^ as I say, and only after a spi- 
ritual manner, as you say. 
4 And you say further^ that before we receive the sacra- 
ment, we must come endued with Christ, and seemly clothed 
with him. But whosoever is endued and clothed with 
Christ, hath Christ present with him after a spiritual man- 
ner, and hath received Christ whole, both God and man, or 
else he could not have everlasting life. And therefore is 
Christ present as well in baptism as in the Lord^s Supper. 
For in baptism be we endued with Christ, and seemly 
clothed with him, as well as in his holy Supper we eat and Gal. iii. 
drink him. 


1 Thus I have perused these differences, which well considered 
me think sufficient to take away and appease all such difierences 
as might be moved against the sacrament^ the faith whereof bath 
ever prevailed against such as have impugned it. And I have not 
read of any that hath written against it, but somewhat hath 
against his enterprise in his writings appeared, whereby to confirm 
it, or so erident untruths affirmed, as whereby those that be as 
indifleient to the truth, as Salomon was in the Judgment of the 
liviog child, may discern the very true mother from the other, that 
is to say, who plainly intend the true child to continue alive, and 
who could be content to have it destroyed by division. God 

2 of his infinite mercy have pity on us, and grant the true faith of 
this holy mystery, uniformly to be conceived in our understand- 
ings, and in one form of words to be uttered and preached, which 
in the Book of Common Prayer is well termed, not distant from 
the catholic faith in my judgment. 


1 You have so perused these differences that you have made 
more difference than ever was before ; for where before there 
were no more but two parts, the true catholic doctrine and 


BOOK the papistical doctrine, now come you in with your new fan* 
' tastical inventions, agreeing with neither part ; but to make 
"^artTmade ^ ®^"8 °^ three parts, you have devised a new voluntary 
of two. descant so far out of tune, that it agreeth neither with the 
tenor nor mean, but maketh such a shameful jar, that 
godly ears abhor to hear it. For you have taught such a 
doctrine as never was written before this time, and uttered 
therein so many untruths and so many strange sayings, that 
every indifferent reader may easily discern that the true 
Christian faith in this matter is not to be sought at your 
hands. And yet in your own writings appeareth something 
to confirm the truth quite against your own enterprise, 
which maketh me have some hope, that after mine answer 
heard, we shall in the principal matter no more strive for the 
child, seeing that yourself have confessed, that Christ is but 
after a spiritual manner present with us. And there is good 
hope that God shall prosper this child to live many years, 
seeing that now I trust you will help to foster and nourisli 
it up as well as I. 

And yet if division may show a step-mother, then be not 2 
Hie true you the true mother of the child, which in the sacrament 
the chUd. in^^c so many divisions. For you divide the substances of 
bread and wine from their proper accidences, the substances 
also of Chrisf s flesh and blood from their own accidences, 
and Christ^s very flesh sacramentally from his very blood, 
although you join them again, per concomitantiam; and you 
divide the sacrament so, that the priest receiveth both the 
sacrament of Chrises body and of his blood ; and the lay 
people, as you call them, receive no more but the sacrament 
of his body, as though the sacrament of his blood and of 
our redemption pertained only to the priests. And the 
cause of our eternal life and salvation, you divide in such 
sort between Christ and the priest, that you attribute the be- 
ginning thereof to the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, 
and the continuance thereof you attribute to the sacrifice of 
the priest in the mass, as you do write plainly in your last 
book. Oh, wicked step-mothers that so divide Christ, his 
sacraments, and his people ! 


After the differences followeth the third, fourth, fifth, and BOOK 


fflxth chapters of my book, which you bind as it were alto-__L- 

gether in one fardel, and cast them quite away, by the 
figure which you call rejection^ not answering one word to 
any Scripture or old writer, which I have there alleged for 
the defence of the truth. But because the reader may see 
the matter plainly before his eyes^ I shall here rehearse my 
words again^ and join thereto your answer. My words be 

[See vol. ii. p. 368—471. " Now to return— in one 
" nature."] 


These differences end in the forty-eighth leaf in the second 
column. I intend now to touch the further matter of the book, 
with the manner of the handling of it, and where an evident un- 
truth 18, there to Join an issue, and where sleight and craft is, 
there to note it in the whole. 

The matter of the book from thence unto the fifty-sixth leaf, 
touching the being of Christ in heaven and not in earth, is out of 
purpose superfluous. The article of our Creed, that Christ ascend- 
ed to heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of bis Father, hath 
been, and is most constantly believed of true Christian men, 
which the true faith of Christ's real presence in the sacrament 
doth not touch or impair. Nor Christ being whole God and man cbrist's 
in the sacrament, is thereby either out of heaven, or to be said ascension 
conversant in earth ; because the conversation is not earthly, but bi, coorer- 
spiritual and godly, being the ascension of Christ the end of his ution in 
conversation in earth, and therefore all that reasoning of the au- sieigdt. 
thor is clearly void, to travail to prove that is not denied, only for ['5^o.] 
a sleight to make it seem as though it were denied. 

Here is such a sleight used by you as is worthy to be a ddght 
noted of all men ; for I m not only about to prove in this^ ^^°^^ 
place, only that Chnst as concernmg his human nature is 
in heaven, which I know you deny not; but I prove also 
that he is so in heaven that he is not in earth, which you 
utterly deny, and it is the chief point in contention between 
us. But by this craft of appeaching me of sleight^ that I 


BOOK go about to prove that thing which you deny not, (which is 
untrue,) you have used such a sleight that you pass over 

eight leaves of my book together, wherein I prove that 
Christ, as concerning his corporal presence, is not here in 
earth, and you answer not one word to any of mine argu- 
ments. And I pray thee note, good reader, what a strange 
manner of sleight this is to pass over eight leaves together 
clearly unanswered ; and that in the chief point that is in 
variance between us, under pretence that I use sleight; 
> where in deed I use none, but prove plainly, that Christ 

is not bodily in heaven and in earth both at one time. If 
he had but touched mine arguments glancing by them, it 
had been somewhat ; but utterly to flee away, and not once 
to touch them, I think thou wilt judge no small sleight and 
craft therein. And methink, in good reason, the matter 
ought to be judged against him for default of answer, who 
being present, answereth nothing at all to the matter where- 
of he is accused, seeing that the law saith, Qyu tacet, con* 
senHre videtur, 
Smyth. Yet Smyth is to be commended in respect of you, who 

attempteth at the least to see what shifts he could make to 
avoid my proofs, and busieth himself rather than he will 
stand mute, to say something to them : and yet indeed, it 
had been as good for him to have said nothing at all, as to 
say that which is nothing to the purpose. 

First, to the Scriptures, by me alleged particularly, he 

Origene. Utterly answereth nothing. To Origene and St. Augustine 

Angustin. by name, and to all the other authors by me alleged, he 

maketh this brief answer in general, that whatsoever those 

authors say, they mean no more but that Christ is not here 

Smyth's ^^ earth visibly, naturally, and by circumscription ; and yet 

▼ain dis- nevertheless, he is in the sacrament above nature, invisibly, 

and without circumscription. This subtle distinction hath 

Smyth devised, or rather followeth other papists therein, to 

answer the authors which I have alleged. And yet of 

Smythe^s own distinction, it followeth that Christ is not in 

the sacrament carnally and corporally ; for if Christ be in 

the sacrament but supernaturally, invisibly, and without cir- 



cumscription, then he is not there carnally and corporally, BOOK 
as St. Augustine reasoneth Jd Dardanum. But yet Smyth ^^'' 
only saith, that the authors so meant, and proveth not one 
word of his saying, supposing that the old holy writers be 
like -to the papists, which write one thing, and when they 
list not or cannot defend it, they say they mean another. 

For those authors make no such distinction as Smyth 
speaketh of, affirming divers and contrary things to be in 
one nature of Christ in divers respects, but their distinction 
is of the two natures in Christ, that is to say, the nature of 
hb Godhead and the nature of his manhood. And they af- 
firm plainly, that the diversity whereof they spake, cannot 
be in one nature, as you say it is, but must needs argue and 
prove diversity of natures. And therefore by that diversity 
and distinction in Christ, they prove against the heretics 
that Christ hath two natures in him, which were utterly no 
proof at all, if one nature in divers respects might have that 
diversity. For the heretics should have had a ready answer 
at hand, that such diversity proveth not that Christ had two 
natures; for one nature may have such diversity, if it be 
true that Smyth saith. And so Smyth, with other papists 
which saith as he doth, putteth a sword in the heretics^ 
hands to fight against the catholic faith. This, good reader, 
thou shalt easily perceive, if thou do no more but read the 
authors which I have in this place alleged. 

And yet for thy more ready instruction, I shall make a 
brief rehearsal of the chief efiect of them, as concerning this 
matter. To answer this question, how it can be said that How both 
Christ is a stranger, and gone hence into heaven, and yet is |J^,^^" 
also here with us on earth, Smyth and other papists resolve be true, 
this matter by divers respects in one natiu^ of Christ ; but \^ ^it^ us, 
the old catholic ¥rriters, which I have alleged, resolve the "*<* 'j?® 
m«« b, ... u^r^ to Ch™,, ^™ing%K« ^^InlyST'- 
that such two divers thmgs cannot have place both in one^^'"™^ 
nature. And therefore say they, that Christ is gone hence, authors' 
and absent in his humanity, who in his Deity is still here^^^f^r. 
with us. They say also, that as concerning his man^s na^ 
ture, the catholic profession in our Creed teacheth us to be- 


BOOK lieve, that he hath made it immortal, but not changed the 
' nature of a very man'^s body ; for his body is in heaven, and 
in one certain place of heaven, because that so requireth the 
measure and compass of a very mane's body. It is also, say 
they^ visible, and hath all the members of a perfect man^s 
body. And further they say, that if Christ^s body were not 
contained within the compass of a place, it were no body ; 
insomuch, that if the Godhead were a body, it must needs 
be in a place, and have quantity, bigness^ and circumscrip- 
tion. For all creatures, say they, visible and invisible, be 
circumscribed and contained within a certain compass, either 
locally within one place^ as corporal and visible things be, or 
else within the property of their own substance, as angels 
and invisible creatures be. And this is one strong argu- 
ment whereby they prove that the Holy Ghost is God, be- 
cause he is in many places at one time, which no creature 
can be, as they teach. And yet they say moreover, that 
Christ did not ascend into heaven but by his humanity, nor 
is not here on earth but by his Divinity, which hath no com- 
pass nor measure. And finally they say, that to go to his 
Father from us, was to take from us that nature which he 
received of us ; and therefore when his body was in earth, 
then surely it was not in heaven, and now when it is in 
heaven, surely it is not in earth. For one nature cannot 
have in itself two sundry and contrary things. 

All these things here rehearsed be written by the old an- 
cient authors which I have alleged^ and they conclude the 
whole matter in this wise, that this is the fiuth and catholic 
confession, which the Apostles taught^ the martyrs did cor- 
roborate, and faithful people keep unto this day. Whereby 
it appeareth evidently, that the doctrine of Smyth and the 
papists at that day was not yet sprung, nor had taken no 

Wherefore, diligently ponder and weigh, I beseech thee, 
gentle reader, the sayings of these authors, and see whether 
they say, that one nature in Christ may be both in heaven 
and in earth, both here with us, and absent from us at one 
time ; and whether they resolve this matter of Christ^s bdng 


in heaven and inearth, as Smyth doth, to be understand of BOOK 
his manhood in diversity of these respects, visible and invi- ^*^' 
sible. And when thou hast well considered the authoFs 
sayings, then give credit to Smyth as thou shait see cause. 

But this allegation of these authors hath made the matter 
so hot, that the Bishop of Wynchester durst not once touch 
it ; and Smyth, as soon as he had touched it, felt it so scald- 
ing hot, that he durst not abide it, but shrank away by and 
by for fear of burning his fingers. Now hear what follow- 
eth further in my book. 

[See vol. ii. p. 871 — 376. " But now seeing^ — " grapes 
" his blood.^ 


Aftbe this, the author occupieth a great number of leaves, that 
18 to say, from the fifty*seventh leaf uoto the seventy-fourth, to 
prove Christ's words, Tfus is my body, to be a figurative speech. 
Sleight and shift is used in the matter without any effectual con- 
secution to him that is learned. 

1 FirRt, the author saith, Christ called bread his body, Christ con- 
fessed bread his body. To this is answered : Christ's calling is a 
making, as St Paul saith, ^ocat ea qiUB non suntj ianquam ea qua Rom. iv. 
stfit. He calleth that be not as they were. And so his calling, as 
Chrysostom ^ and the Greek commentaries say, is a making, which 

also the Catechism teacheth, translate by Justus Jonas in Ger- 
many, and after by this author in English. 

2 TertuUian saith "*, Christ made bread his body -y and it is all one 
speech in Christ being God declaring his ordinances, whether he 
use the word " call,** or " make,*' for in his mouth to call is to 

Cyprian saith ^ according hereunto, how bread is by God's om- 
nipotency made flesh, whereupon also this speech, " bread is flesh,*' 
is as much to say as made flesh ; not that bread being bread is 
flesh, but that was bread is flesh by God*s omnipotency ; and so 
this author, entreating this matter as he doth, hath partly opened 
the faith of transubstantiation. For in deed, bread being bread is 

' ChrysMt. In EpUt, Ad Ro, cap. 4. 

" TertulUan. Adversus Marcionem, lib. iv. 

■ Cyprianus, De Otna Domini. [See vol. ii. p. 3S3, note.] 






An iMoe. 


Rom. iv. 
calling be 

not Christ's body, but that was bread is now Christ*s body, be- 
cause bread is made Christ's body, and because Christ called 3 
bread his body, which was in Christ to make bread his body. 
When Christ made water wine, the speech is very proper to say, 
water is made wine. For after like manner of speech we say, 
Christ justifieth a wicked man, Christ saveth sinners, and the phy- 
sician hath made the sick man whole, and such diet will make an 
whole man sick. All these speeches be proper and plain, so as 
the construction be not made captious and sophistical, to join that 
was to that now is, forgetting the mean work. 

When Christ said. This is my body, there is no necessity that 
the demonstration ** this" should be referred to the outward visible 4 
matter, but mav be referred to the invisible substance. As in the 
speech of God the Father upon Christ in baptism, Tfus is my Son. 

And here, when this author taketh his recreation to speak of 
the feigning of the papists, I shall join this issue in this place, that 5 
he understandeth not what he saith, and if his knowledge be no 
better than is uttered here in the pen, to be in this point clearly 
condemned of ignorance. 


Here is another sleight, such as the like hath not lightly i 
been seen. For where I wrote, that when Christ said, This 
is my body J it was bread that he called his body, you turn 
the matter to make a descant upon these two words, *^ call- 
^^ ing,^ and *^ making,^ that the minds of the readers should 
be so occupied with the discussion of these two words, that 
in the meantime they should forget what thing it was that 
was called and made. Like unto men that dare larks, which 
hold up an hobby, that the larks^ eyes being ever upon the 
hobby should not see the net that is laid on their heads. 

And yet, finaUy, you grant that which Smyth denieth, that 
it was bread which Christ called his body, when he said, 
This is my body. And so that which was not his body in 
deed, he called his body, who calieth things that be not, as 
they were the things in deed. And if his calling be making, 
then his calling bread his body, is making bread his body : 
and so is not only Christ's body made present, but also the 
bread is made his body, because it is called his body ; and 
so must bread be the thing whereof Christ's body is made ; 


which before you denied in the eleventh comparison, calling BOOK 
that saying so foolish that it were not tolerable to be devised '^*' 
by a scoffer in a play, to supply when his fellow had for- 
gotten his part. And thus should you conclude yourself, if 
Christ^s calling were making ; which in deed is not true, for 
then should Christ have made himself a vine, when he called John xr. 
himself a vine, and have made St. John the blessed Virgin 
Mary^s son, when he called him her son, and should have John xix. 
made his Apostles vine branches, when he called them so, john xr. 
and should have made Peter a devil, when he called him Matth. xn. 

After, when you come to make answer unto the authors 
cited by me in this place, first you skip over Irenee, the ireneos. 
eldest author of them all^ because^ I think, he is too hard 
meat for you well to digest, and therefore you will not once 
taste of him. 

a In Tertullian and Cyprian you agree again, that when TertuUiAn. 
Christ said This is my body, it was bread that he called his ^Y^f^^- 
body. And so when he said Thisy he meant the breads Whether 
making demonstration upon it; as before you have said more ^^^^ 
at large in your book, which you named the Detection of the Cbritt'i 
DeviPs Sophistry. And herein you say more truly than the 
other papists do, which deny that the demonstration was 
made upon the bread, although you say not true in the 
other part, that Chrisfs calling was making. 

3 And if his calling be changing of the bread, and making conrenion 
it the body of Christ, yet then it is not true to speak of the Jj^^"*'' 
bread and to say, that it is the body of Christ. For when 
one thing is changed into another, the first still remaining, 
it may be said both that it is made the other thing, and 
that it is the other thing ; (as when cloth is made a gown, we 
may say this cloth is made a gown, and also this cloth is a 
gown ;) but when the former matter or state remaineth not, 
it may be said, that it is made the other thing, but not that 
it is the other thing. As when Christ had turned water 
into wine, it was true to say water is made wine, but not to 
say water is wine. And likewise, although we say, a wicked 
man is made just, a sick man is made whole, or an whole 



BOOK man sick, yet it is no true speech to say a wicked man is 
^^^' )ust, a sick man is whole, or an whole man is sick, because 
the former state remaineth not. And therefore, although it 
might in speech be allowed, that the bread is made Christ^s 
body when the bread is gone, yet can it not be a proper and 
approved speech to say, it is his body, except the bread re- 
main still. For of that thing which is not, it cannot be said 
that it is Christ'^s body ; for if it be his body, it must needs 
be, by the rule of l(^c, a tertio ad^acentej ad secundum ad- 

And I marvel how you have overshot yourself in this 
place, when you teach how, and after what manner, bread is 
Christ's made Christ^s body ; not that bread, say you, being bread is 
^J^ ^£ his body, but that which was bread is now made his body ; 
bread. whereof it foUoweth necessarily, that his body is made of 
John ii. bread. For as the wine in the Cane of Galilee was made of 
water, when the substance of water was turned into the sub- 
stance of wine ; so if in the sacrament the substance of bread 
be turned into the substance of Chri^ fs body, then is his 
body in the sacrament made of bread, which in the eleventh 
comparison you affirmed to be so foolish a saying, as were 
not tolerable to be devised by a scoffer in a play, to supply 
when his fellow had forgotten his part. 

Therefore I have not here partly opened the faith of 
transubstantiation, as you say of me, but you have here ma^ 
nifestly opened the wisdom of the papistical doctrine, which 
is more foolish than were to be devised by a scoffer in a 

But what need I much to contend with you in this place, 
seeing that you grant the thing for the which I cited all 
these authors, that is to say, that Christ called bread his 
body, when he said. This is my body, 
Whetber -^"^ ^^ 7^"' Detection of the DeviPs Sophistry, as you 4 
Christ call- call it, you say that Christ spake plainly. This is my body^ 
his body, making demonstration of the bread, when he said. This is 
my body. But it seemeth, you be sorry that you have 
granted so much, and that you spake those words unad- 
visedly, before you knew what the papists had written in 


that matter; and now when you perceive how far you vary BOOK 
from them, you would fain call your words back again, and 
prepare a way for the same^ saying thus ; When Christ said, 
Th%8 is my bodjfy there is no necessity that the demonstra- 
tion ^' this^ should be referred to the outward visible matter, 
but may be referred to the invisible substance. In these 
your words it seemeth you begin to doubt in that thing 
which before you certainly affirm without all doubt. 
5 And when you have confessed the whole matter that I do 
here prove, (which is only this, that Christ called bread his 
body and wine his blood, when he said. This is my body^ 
This is my bloody) yet you conclude your answer with an 
issue of mine ignorance, that it is so great that I understand 
not what I say, if my knowledge be no better than is ut- 
tered here in my pen. And yet my words be so plain, that 
the least child, as they say, in the town may understand 
them ; for all my study is to speak' plain, that the truth 
may be known, and not with dark speeches, as you do, to 
hide the truth. But when I had made a plain issue against 
all the papists in general, it had been your part to have 
joined in the said issue, and not to devise new issues* 

But because neither you nor Smyth dare join with me in Smyth. 
mine issue, I shall repeat mine issue again, and take it for 
confessed of you both, because neither of you dare say the 
contrary, and join an issue with me therein. My issue is Mine issue, 
this: Let all the papists together show any one authority, '-'^ ^'^ 
either of Scripture or of ancient author, either Greek or 
Latin, that sayeth as they say, that Christ called not bread 
and wine his body and blood, but Individuum vctgum^ and 
for my part I shall give them place, and confess that they 
say true. And if they can show nothing for them of anti- 
quity, but only their own bare words, then it is reason that 
they give place to the truth, confirmed by so many author- 
ities both of Scripture and of ancient writers, which is, that 
Christ called very material bread his body, and very wine 
made of grapes his blood. 

Now it shall not be much amiss to examine here the wise Smyth. 
device of Mr. Smith, what he can say to this matter, that the 



BOOK opinion of divers doctors may be known, as well of Doctor 
^^^' Smyth as of Doctor Gardyner. It is very false, saith Smyth 
to me, that you do say, that as these words, This is my 
hodyy do lie, there can be gathered of them none other sense, 
but that bread is Christ^s body, and that Christ^s body is 
bread. For there can no such thing be gathered of those 
words, but only that Christ gave his disciples his very body 
to eat, into which he had turned the bread, when he spake 
those words. First, Smyth useth here a great and mani- 
fest falsehood in reciting of my sentence, leaving out those 
words which should declare the truth of my saying. For I 
say that by this manner of speech plainly understand with- 
out any figure, there can be gathered none other sense, but 
that bread is Christ^s body. In which my sentence he leav- 
eth out these words, ^' by this manner of speech plainly un- 
'^ derstand without any figure,^ which words be so material, 
that in them resteth the pith and trial of the whole sentence. 
Matth. iiT. When Christ took the five loaves and two fishes, and look- 
Luke ix. ^"S ^P ^"^^ heaven, blessed them, and brake them, and gave 
JohoYi. them unto his disciples, that they should distribute them 
unto the people, if he had then said. Eat, this is meat, which 
shall satisfy your hunger ; by this manner of speech plainly 
understand without any figure, could any otlier sense have 
been gathered, but that the bread and fishes which he gave 
them was meat P And if at the same time he had blessed 
wine, and commanding them to drink thereof, had sfud, 
This is drink, which shall quench your thirst ; what could 
have been gathered of those words plainly understand with- 
out any figure, but that he called wine drink ? So likewise 
when he blessed bread and wine, and gave them to his dis- 
ciples, saying, EaJt^ this is my body; Drink^ this is my 
bhod ; what can be gathered of this manner of speech plainly 
understand without any figure, but that he called the bread 
his body and wine his blood? For Christ spake not one 
word there of any changing or turning of the substance of 
the bread, no more than he did when he gave the loaves and 
fishes. And therefore the manner of speech is all one, and 
the changing of the substances can no more be proved by 


the phrase and fashion of speech to be in the one than in BOOK 
the other, whatsoever you papists dream of your own heads "*' 
without Scripture, that the substance of the bread is turned 
into the substance of Christ^s body. 

But Smyth bringeth here news, using such strange and Smyth, 
novelty of speech, as other papists use not, which he doth 
either of ignorance of his grammar, or else that he dissenteth 
far from other papists in judgment. For he saith, that 
Christ had turned the bread when he spake these words, 
This is my body. And if Smyth remember his Accidence, 
the preterpluperfect tense signifieth the time that is more 
than perfectly past, so that if Christ had turned the bread 
when he spake those words, then was the turning done be- 
fore and already past, when he spake those words, which the 
other papists say was done after, or in the pronunciation of 
the words. And therefore they use to speak after this sort, 
that when he had spoken the words, the bread was turned, 
and not that he had turned the bread when he spake the 

Another novelty of speech Smyth useth in the same place, 
saying that Christ called his body bread, because he turned 
bread into it, it seemeth and appeareth still to be it, it hath 
the quality and quantity of bread, and because it is the food 
of the soul as corporal meat is of the body. These be 
Smy the^s words, which if he understand of the outward form 
of bread, it is a novelty to say, that it is the food of the 
soul : and if he mean of the very body of Christ, it is a 
more strange novelty to say, that it hath the quantity and 
quality of bread. For there was never man, I trow, that 
used that manner of speech, to say that the body of Christ 
hath the quantity and quality of bread, although the papists 
use this speech, that the body of Christ is contained under 
the form, that is to say, under the quantities and qualities of 


Now when Smyth should come to make a direct answer 
unto the authorities of the old writers, which I have brought 
forth to prove that Christ called bread his body when he 
sud, This is my body ; Smith answereth no more but this : 



BOOK « The doctors, which you my lord, allege here for you, 

! — ^ prove not your purpose.^ Forsooth, a substantial answer, 

and well proved, that the doctors by me alleged prove not 
my purpose, for Smy the saith so. I looked here that Smythe 
should have brought forth a great number of authors to ap- 
prove his saying, and to reprove mine ; specially seeing that 
I offered fair play to him, and to all the pajnsts joined with 
him in one troop. 

For after that I had alleged for the proof of my purpose 
a great many places of old authors, both Greeks and Latins, 
I provoked the papists to say what they could to the con- 
trary. Let all the papists together, said I, show any one au- 
thority for them, either of Scripture or ancient author, either 
Greek or Latin, and for my part I shall give them place. 
And if they can show nothing for them of antiquity, (hen is 
it reason that they give place to the truth confirmed by so 
many authorities, both of Scripture and of ancient writers, 
which is, that Christ called very material bread his body, 
and very wine made of grapes his blood. 

Now I refer to thy judgment, indifferent reader, whether 
I offered the papists reason or no ; and whether they ought 
not, if they had any thing to show, to have brought it forth 
here? And forasmuch as they have brought nothing, (being 
thus provoked with all their counsel,) whether thou oughtest 
not to judge that they have nothing indeed to show, which 
if they had, without doubt we should have heard of it in 
this place. But we hear nothing at all, but these their bare 
words, ^ Not one of all these doctors saith as ye do, my 
* lord.** Which I put in thy discretion, indifferent reader, 
to view the doctors^ words by me alleged, and so to judge. 

But they say not that there is only bread in the sacra- 
ment, saith Smyth, and not Chrisfs body. What then? 
What is that to purpose here in this place, I pray you? 
For I go not about in this place to prove that only bread is 
in the sacrament, and not Christ'^s body ; but in this place I 
prove only, that it was very bread which Christ called his 
body, and very wine which he called his blood, when he 
said. This is my hody^ This is my blood. Which Smyth 


with all the rabblement of the papists deny ; and yet all the book 
old authors afBnn it with Doctor Steven Gardiner late '"' 
Bishop of Wynchester also, who saith that Christ made de- 
monstration upon the bread, when he said, This is my body. 
And as all the old authors be able to countervail the papists, 
so is the late Bishop able to match Smyth in this matter, so 
that we have at the least a Rowlande for an Olyver. But 
shortly to comprehend the answer of Smyth, where I have 
proved my sajrings, adozen leaves together, by the authority of 
Scripture and old catholic writers, is this a sufficient answer, 
only to say, without any proof, that all my travail is lost ? 
and that all I have alleged is nothing to the purpose ? Judge 
indifferently^ gentle reader, whether I might not by the same 
reason cast away all Smythe^s whole book, and reject it 
quite and clean, with one word saying. All his labour is lost, 
and to no purpose. Thus Smythe and Gardiner being an- 
swered, I will return again to my book, where it foUoweth 

[See vol. ii. p. 87ft-.378. « Now this being fully 
" proved*" ** born on earth .^] 

. Winchester. 

1 In the sixtieth leaf the author entreateth whether it be a plain 
speech of Christ to say» Eat and drmky speaking of his body and 
blood. I answer, the speech of itself is proper, commandiDg them 
present to eat and drink that is proponed for them 3 and yet it is 
not requisite that the nature of man should with like common effect 
work, in eating and drinking that heavenly meat and drink, as it 
doth in earthly and carnal meats. In this mystery man doth as 
Christ ordained, that is to say, receive with his mouth that is or- 
dered to be received with his mouth, granting it nevertheless of 

2 that dignity and estimation that Christ*s words affirm 5 and whe- 
ther he so doth or no, Christ's ordinance is as it is in the substance 
of itself alone, whereof no good man Judgeth carnally or grossly, 
ne discusseth the unfaithful question "how,*' which he cannot 
conceive, but leaveth the deepness thereof, and doth as be is bid- 
den. This mystery receiveth no man's thoughts. Christ's insti- 

3 tution hath a property in it, which cannot be discussed by roan's 
sensual reason ; Christ's words be spirit and life, which this author 
wresteth with his own gloss, to exclude the truth of the eating of 


BOOK Christ's flesh in his Supper : and yet for a shift, if a man would 
"^' join issue with him, putteth to his speech the words ** grossly" 

and ** carnally,** which words, in such a rude understanding, be 
terms meeter to express how dogs devour paunches, than to be 
inculked in speaking of this high mystery. Wherein I will make 4 
An iMoe. the issue with this author, that no catholic teaching is so framed 
with such terms as though we should eat Christfs most precious 5 
body grossly, carnally, joining those words so together. For else 
" carnally,** alone may bftve a good signification, as Hiiarye useth 
it, but contrarywise speaking in the catholic teaching of the man- 
ner of Christ's presence, they call it a spiritual manner of presence, 
and yet there is present by God*s power the very true natural 
body and blood of Christ, whole God and man, without leaving his 
place in heaven ; and in the holy Supper men use their mouths 6 
and teeth, following Christ's commandment in the receiving of 
that holy sacrament, being in ffuth sufficiently instruct, that they 
cannot ne do not tear, consume, or violate, that most precious 
body and blood, but unworthily receiving it, are cause of their 
own judgment and condemnation. 


Eating and drinking with the mouth being so plain a 

matter, that young babes learn it and know it before they 

The eat- can speak, yet the cuttle here with his black colours and 

C&^t*8 ^^^^ speeches, goeth about so to cover and hide the matter, 

body is not that neither young nor old, learned nor unlearned, should 

' understand what he meaneth. But for all his masking, who 

is so ignorant but he knoweth, that eating in the proper and 

usual signification is to bite and chaw in sunder with the 

teeth? And who knoweth not also, that Christ is not so 

eaten ? Who can then be ignorant, that here you speak a 

manifest untruth, when you say, that Chrisfs body to be 

eaten, is of itself a proper speech and not figurative ? which 

is by and by confessed by yourself, when you say that we 

do not eat that heavenly meat as we do other carnal meats, 

which is by chawing and dividing with the mouth and teeth. 

And yet we receive with the mouth that is ordained to be 

received with the mouth, that is to say, the sacramental 

bread and wine, esteeming them nevertheless unto us when 

we duly receive them according unto Christ^s words and 



a But where you say, that of the substance of Christ^s body BOOK 
no good man judgeth carnally, ne discusseth the unfaith- 
ful question ** how,^ you charge yourself very sore in so say- 
ing, and seem to make demonstration upon yourself, of whom 
may be said. Ex ore ttio te Judico. For you both judge 
carnally in affirming a carnal presence and a carnal eating, 
and also you discuss this question, ** how,^ when you say 
that Christ^s body is in the sacrament really, substantially, 
corporally, carnally, sensibly, and naturally, as he was born 
of the Virgin Mary, and suffered on the cross. 

3 And as concerning these words of Christ, The toords John ri. 
which I do speak be spirU and life^ I have not wrested them 

with mine own gloss, as you misreport, but I have cited for 
me the interpretation of the catholic doctors and holy fathers 
of the Church, as I refer to the judgment of the reader. 

4 But you teach such a carnal and gross eating and drink- 
ing of Chrisf s flesh and blood, as is more meet to express 
how d<^ devour paunches, than to set forth the high mys- 
tery of Christ's holy Supper. For you say, that Christ's 
body is present, really, substantially, corporally, and car- 
nally, and so is eaten ; and that we eat Christ's body, as 
eating is taken in common speech : but in common speech it 
is taken for chawing and gnawing, as dogs do paunches; 
wherefore of your saying it followeth, that we do so eat 
Christ's body, as dogs eat paunches, which all Christian ears 
abhor for to hear. 

5 But why should I join with you here an issue, in that 
matter which I never spake ? For I never read, nor heard 
no man that said, saving you alone, that we do eat Christ 
grossly or carnally, or as eating is taken in common speech 
without any figure ; but all that ever I have heard or read, 
say quite clean contrary. But you, who affirm that we eat 
Christ carnally and as eating is taken in common speech, 
(which is carnally and grossly to chaw with the teeth,) must 
needs consequently grant, that we eat him grossly and car- 
nally, as dogs eat paunches. And this is a strange thing to 
hear, that where before you said that Christ is present but 
after a spiritual manner, now you say that he is eaten car- 


BOOK And where you say, that in the holy Supper men use their 6 
^^^' mouth and teeth, truth it is that they so do, but to chaw 

the sacrament, not the body of Christ. And if they do not 
tear that most precious body and blood, why say you then 
that they eat the body of Christ, as eating is taken in com- 
mon speech ? And wherefore doth that false papistical faith 
Nycolastheof Pope Nycolas, which you wrongfully call catholic, teach 
that Christ^s body is torn with the teeth of the faithful <> ? 

Now follow the particular authorities, which I have al- 
leged for the interpretation of Christ^s words, which, if you 
had well considered, you would not have said, as you do, 
that I wrested Chrisf s words with mine own gloss. First 
I begin with Orygene, saying : 

[See vol. ii. p. 878—379. " And Origen'' " in this 

" place.''] 


Now I will touch shortly what may be said to the particular au- 
OrigeiKis. thorities brought in by this author. Origen is noted, among 
other writers of the Church, to draw the text to allegories, who 
doth not thereby mean to destroy the truth of the letter ; and 
therefore, when he speaketh of a figure, saith not there is an only 
figure, which exclusive '* only** being away* (as it is not found by 
any author catholic taught that the speech of Christ of the eating 
of his flesh to be only a figure,) this author hath nothing advanced 
his purpose. As for spiritual understanding meaneth not any de- 
struction of the letter, where the same may stand with the rules of 
our faith. All Christ's words be life and spirit, containing in the 
letter many times that is above our capacity, as specially in this 
place of the eating of his flesh, to discuss the particularities of 
'* how," and yet we must believe to be true that Christ saith, aU 
though we cannot tell how : for when we go about to discuss of 
God*s mystery " how,** then we fall from faith, and wax carnal 
men, and would have God*s ways like ours. 


Here may every man that readeth the words of Origen 
plainly see, that you seek in this w^gfaty matter nothing but 

« De Cmsecr. dist. 2. " Ego." 


shifts and cavillations. For you have nothing answered di- BOOK 
rectly to Origen, although he directly writeth against your ^^^' 
doctrine. For you say that the eating of Christy's flesh is 
taken in the proper signification without a figure : Origene 
saith there is a figure. And Origen saith further, that it is 
only a figurative speech, although not adding this word 
^^ only,^ yet adding other words of the same efiect. For he 
saith that we may not understand the words as the letter 
soundeth: and saith further, that if we understand the 
words of Christ in this place as the letter soundeth, the letter 
killeth. Now who knoweth not that to say these words *^ not 
<< as the letter soundeth,^ and ^< the letter killeth^ be as much 
to say, as only spiritually, and only otherwise than the letter 
soundeth ? Wherefore you must spit upon your hands, and 
take better hold, or else you cannot be able to pluck Origen 
so shortly from me. And I marvel that you be not ashamed 
thus to trifle with the ancient authors in so serious a matter, 
and in such places, where the reader only looking upon the 
author^s words, may see your dallying. The next is Chry- 
sostome, whom I cite thus : 

[See voL ii. p. 879. " And St. John Chrysostome'' 

** figuratively.''] 


St. Chbysostom declareth himself how mysteries must be con- Chrysos- 
sidered with inward eyes, which is a spiritual understanding, ^"** 
whereby the truth of the mystery is not as it were by a figurative 
speech impaired, but with an humility of understanding in a cer- 
tain fiiith of the truth marvelled at. And here the author of this 
book useth a sleight to Join figuratively to spiritually, as though 
they were always all one, which is not so. 

As you have handled Origen before, even so do you han- 
dle Chrysostome. Wherefore I only refer the reader to 
look upon the words of Chrysostome recited in my book, 
who saith, that to understand the words of eating Christ's 
flesh simply as they be spoken, is a carnal understanding. 
And then can it be no proper speech, as you say it is^ be- 



BOOK cause it cannot be understand as the words be «poken, but 


must have another understanding spiritually. Then foUow- 

eth next St. Augustine^ of whom I write thus : 

[See vol. ii. p. 979— 3SZ. '' And yet most plainly' 
" then bom.''] 




St. Augustine, according to his rules of a figuratire and proper i 
speech, taketh this speech. Except ye eat, 8sc. for a figurative 
speech, because it seemeth to command in the letter carnally un- 
derstanded, an heinous and wicked thing to eat the flesh of a man, 
as man's carnal imagination conceiveth it, as appeared by the 
Caphamaites, who murmured at it. And therefore, because only 
faithful men can by faith understand this mystery of the eating of 
Christ's flesh in the sacrament, in whksh we eat not the carnal 
flesh of a common man^ as the letter soundeth, but the very spiri- 
tual flesh of Christ, God and man, as ^Eiith teacheth : it is in that > 
respect well noted for a figurative speech, for that it bath such a 
sense in the letter as is hidden from the unfaithful ; so as the 
same letter being to faithful men spirit and life, who in humility 6 
of faith understandeth the same, is to the unfaithful a figure, as 
containing such a mystery as by the outward bark of the letter 
they understand not. Upon which consideration it seemeth pro- 
bable that the other fathers also signifying a great secresy in this 
mystery of the sacrament, wherein is a work of God inefikble, 
such as the ethnic ears could not abide, they termed it a figure ; 4 
not thereby to diminish the truth of the mystery, as the proper and 
s|jecial name of a figure doth, but by the name of a figure, reve- 
rently to cover so great a secresy, apt only to be understanded of 3 
men believing ; and therefore the said fathers in some part of their 
works in plain words express and declare the truth of the mys- 
tery, and the plain doctrine thereof, according to the catholic 
faith, and in the other part pass it over with the name of a figure : 
which consideration in St Augustin's writings may be evidently 
gathered ; for in some place no man more plainly openeth the 
substance of the sacrament than he doth, speaking expressly of 
the very body and blood of Christ contained in it ; and yet there- 5 
with in other places noteth in those words a figure, not thereby 
to contrary his other plain sayings and doctrine, but meaning by 


the word figure to signify a secret deep mystery hidden from BOOK 
carnal understanding. For avoiding and expelling of which car^ 
s nality, he giveth this doctrine here of this text. Except ye eaU 3rc. 
which, as I said before, in the bare literal sense, iinplieth to carnal 
judgment other carnal circumstances to attain the same flesh to be 
eaten, which in that carnal sense cannot be but by wickedness. 
But what is this to the obeying of Chri8t*s commandment in the 
institution of his Supper? When himself delivereth his body and 
blood in these mysteries, and biddeth Eat and drink^ there can be 
no ofienoe to do as Christ biddeth ; and therefore St. Augnstin's 

7 nile pertaineth not to Christ*s Supper, wherein when Christ will- 
etb us to use our mouth, we ought to dare do as he biddeth ; for 

8 that is spiritiml understanding, to do as is commanded without Contrary 
carnal thought or murmuring in our sensual device, how it can be '-'^ 

so. And St. Augustine in the same place, speaking De communi- 
cando pasiiombus Christie declareth plainly he meaneth of the sa- 


If thou takest not very good heed, reader, thou shalt not 
perceive where the cuttle becometh : he wrappeth himself 
so about in darkness, and he cometh not near the net by a 
mile, for fear he should be taken. But I will draw my net 
nearer to him, that he shall not escape. I say that the words 
which Christ spake of the eating of his flesh and drinking of 
his blood, were spoken by a figure ; and he would avoid the 
matter, by saying that those words have a spiritual mystery 
in them, which is most true, and nothing contrary to my 
saying, but confirmeth the same. For the words of eating 
I and drinking be figurative speeches, because they have a 
secret and hid spiritual mystery in them, and cannot be 
taken otherwise than in that spiritual mystery, which is a 
figure. And moreover you plainly here confess, that to eat 
Chrisf s flesh and to drink his blood be figurative speeches. 
But you traverse the cause wherefore they be figurative 
speeches, which is not material in this place, where my pro- 
cess is only to prove that they be figurative speeches. And 
forasmuch as you grant here all that I take upon me to 
prove, which is, that they be figurative speeches, what need- 


BOOK eth all this superfluous multiplicaUon of words, when we 
^^^' agree in the matter which is here in question ? 

And as for the cause of the figure, you declare it far a 
otherwise than St. Augustine doth, as the words of St. Au- 
gustine do plainly show to every indifferent reader. For the 
cause, say you, is this, that in the sacrament we eat not the 
carnal flesh of a common man, as the letter soundeth, but 
the very spiritual flesh of Christ, Grod and man, and in that 
respect it is well noted for a figurative speech. 

In which one sentence be three notable errors or untruths. 
The first is, that you say the letter soundeth that we eat the 
carnal flesh of a common man ; which your saying the plain 
words of the Gospel do manifestly reprove. For Christ, 
separating himself in that speech from all other men, spake 
John n. only of himself, saying. My JUsh is very tneatj a^id my 
blood is very drink : He that eateth my Jlesh and drinketh 
my Uoodj dwetteth in me and I in him. The second is, that 
you call the flesh of Christ a spiritual flesh, as before you 
said that he is spiritually^aten : and so by your doctrine 
his flesh is spiritual, and is spiritually eaten, and all is spi- 
ritual, which hath need of a favourable interpretation, if it 
should be counted a sound and catholic teaching. And if 
all be spiritual, and done spiritually, what meaneth it then 
that in other places you make so often mention, that he is 
present and eaten carnally, corporally, and naturally? 

The third is, that you say the speech of Christ is noted 
figurative in respect of the eating of the flesh of a common 
man, which is utterly untrue. For the authors note not the 
figurative speech in that respect : but as Christ spake of his 
own flesh joined unto his Divinity, whereby it giveth life ; 
even so do the authors note a figurative speech in respect of 
Christ^s own flesh, and say thereof, that the letter cannot be 
true without a figure. For although Christ be both God 
and man, yet his flesh is a very man^s flesh, and his blood is 
truly man'^s blood, (as is the flesh and blood of his blessed 
mother,) and therefore cannot be eaten and drunken pro- 
perly, but by a figure. For he is not meat and drink of the 
body, to be eaten corporally with mouth and teeth, and to 


be digested in the stomach ; but he is the meat of the soul, BOOK 
to be received spiritually in our hearts and minds, and to be ^^^' 
chawed and digested by fSEUth. 

3 And it is untrue that you here say, that the proper and 
special name of a figure diminisheth the truth of the mys- 
tery ; for then Christ in vain did ordain the figures, if they 
diminish the mysteries. 

And the authors termed here a figure, not thereby to 
cover the mystery, but to open the mystery, which was in 
deed in Christ's words by figurative speeches understand. 
And with the figurative speech were the ethnic and carnal 
ears offended, not with the mystery which they understood 
not. And not to the ethnic and carnal, but to the faithful 

4 and spiritual ears, the words of Christ be figurative, and to 
them the truth of the figures be plainly opened and declared 
by the fathers ; wherein the fathers be worthy much com« 
mendation, because they travailed to open plainly unto us 
the obscure and figurative speeches of Christ. And yet in 
their said declarations they taught us, that these words of 
Christ, concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his 
blood, are not to be understand plainly, as the words pro* 
perly signify, but by a figurative speech. 

5 Nor St. Augustine never wrote in all his long works as 
you do, that Christ is in the sacrament corporally, carnally, 
or naturally, or that he is so eaten ; nor, I dare boldly say, 
he never thought it. For if he had, he would not have 
written so plainly, as he doth in the places by me alleged, 
that we must beware that we take not literally any thing 
that is spoken figuratively. And specially he would not 
have expressed by name the words of eating Christ^s flesh 
and drinking his blood, and have said that they be figura- 
tive speeches. But St. Augustine doth not only tell how we 
may not take those words, but also he declareth how we 
ought to take and understand the eating of Chrisf s flesh and 
drinking of his blood, which, as he saith, is this. To keep in 
our minds to our great comfort and profit, that Christ was 
crucified, and shed his blood for us, and so to be partakers 

VOL. III. o 


BOOK of his passion. This, siuth St. Augustine, is to eat his flesh 
^^^' and to drink his blood. 

And St. Augustine saith not as you do, that Christy's <» 
words be figurative to the unfaithful, for they be figurative 
rather to the faithful than to the unfaithful; for the unfaith- 
ful take them for no figure or mystery at all, but rather car- 
nally, as the Capernaites did. And there is in deed no 
mystery nor figure in eating with the mouth, as you say 
Chrisf s flesh is eaten, but in eating with the soul and spirit 
is the figure and mystery. For the eating and drinking 
with the mouth is all one to the faithful and unfaithful, to 
the carnal and spiritual, and both understand in like, what 
is eating and drinking with the mouth. And therefore in no 
place do the doctors declare that there is a figure or mys- 
tery in eating and drinking of Chrisfs body with our 
mouths, or that there is any truth in that mystery, but 
they say clean contrary, that he is not eaten and drunken 
with our mouths. And if in any place any old author write 
that there is a figure or mystery in eating and drinking of 
Christ with our mouths, show the place, if you will have any 
, credit. St. Augustine specially, whom you do here allege 
'for your purpose, saith directly against you, '^ Nolite parare 
" fauces, sed cor P C " Prepare not your mouth or jaws, but 
*^ your heart.*^^ And in another place he saith, *^ Quid paras 
" ventrem et dentem ? Crede, et manducasti^ ;*" " Why dost 
^^ thou prepare thy belly and teeth ? Believe, and thou hast 
" eaten.'' 

But to avoid the saying of St. Augustine by me alleged, 7 
you say, that St. Augustine's rule pertaineth not to Christ's 
Supper ; which your saying is so strange, that you be the 
first that ever excluded the words of Christ from his Supper. 
And St Augustine meant as well at the Supper, as at all 
othqr times, that the eating of Christ's flesh is not to be un- 
derstanded carnally with our teeth, as the letter signifieth, 
but spiritually with our minds, as he in the same place de- 

P August. De Verbit Domini^ Senn. 33. 1 August. In Joan, tract. «5. 


clareth. And how can it be, that St Augustine^s rule per- BOOK 
taineth not to Christ^s Supper, when by that rule he ex- '^^- 
poundeth Christ^s words in the sixth of John, which you say 
Christ spake of his Supper? Did Christ speak of his Sup- 
per, and St. Augustine^s words expounding the same pertain 
not to the Supper ? You make St. Augustine an expositor 
like yourself, that commonly use to expound both doctors 
and Scriptures clean from the purpose, either for that by 
lack of exercise in the Scriptures and doctors you understand 
them not, or else that for very frowardness you will not un- 
derstand any thing that misliketh you. And where you 
8 say, that we must do as Christ commanded us, without car- 
nal thought or sensual device ; is not this a carnal thought 
and sensual device which you teach, that we eat Christ cor- 
porally with our teeth, and contrary to that which you said 
before, that Christ'^s body in the sacrament is a spiritual 
body, and eaten only spiritually ? Now how the teeth can 
eat a thing spirituaUy, I pray you tell me. 

Now thou seest, good reader, what avail aU those glosses, 
of carnal flesh and spiritual flesh ; of the flesh of Christ, and 
the flesh of a common man ; of a figure to the unfaithful, . 
and not to the faithful ; that the fathers termed it a figure, 
because else the ethnic ears could not abide it, and because 
they would reverently cover the mystery. And when none 
of these foul shifts will serve, he runneth to his shot anchor, 
that St. Augustine^s rule pertaineth nothing to Christ^s Sup- 
per. Thus mayest thou see, with what sincerity he handleth 
the old writers. And yet he might right well have spared 
all his long talk in this matter, seeing that he agreeth fully 
with me in the state of the whole cause, that to eat Christ^s 
flesh and to drink his blood, be figurative speeches. For he 
that declareth the cause, why they be figurative speeches, 
agreeth in the matter, that they be figurative speeches. And 
so have I my full purpose in this article. Now hear what 
foUoweth in my book. 

[See vol. ii. p. S82. " The same authors'" « body 

« and blood."" 







Tbrtullian, speaking of the representation of Christ^s very 
body, in which place he terroeth it the same body, speaketh ca- 
tholicly in such phrase as St. Hierome speaketh, and then Tertul- 
iian saith afterward as this author therein truly bringeth him forth, 
that Christ made the bread his body, which bread was in thei 
mouth of the Prophet a figure of his body. Wherefore it follow^ 
eth by TertiiUian*s confession^ when Christ made the bread his 
body, that Christ ended the figure and made it the truth, making 
now his body that was before the figure of his body. For if 2 
Christ did no more but make it a figure still, then did he not 
make it his body, as TertuUian himself saith he did. And Tertul- 
lian therefore, being read thus, as appeareth to me most probable, 
that *' that is to say** in TertulUan should be only referred to the 
explication of the first '* this," as when Tertullian had alleged 
Christ^s words, saying *' This is my body,'* and putteth to of his 
own, " that is to say the figure of my body," these words, '* that 
** is to say,** should serve to declare the demonstration " this,** in 
this wise, ** that is to say, this which the Prophet called the figure 
** of my body, is now my body,** and so Tertullian said before that 
Christ had made bread his body, which bread was a figure of his 
body with the Prophet, and now endeth in the very truth, being 
made his body by conversion, as Cyprian showeth, of the nature of 3 
bread into his body. Tertullian reasoned agunst the Marcionists, 
and because a figure in the Prophet signifieth a certain unfeigned 
truth of that is signified, seeing Christ*s body was figured by bread 
in the Prophet Hieremy, it appeareth Christ had a true body. And 4 
that the bread was of Christ approved for a figure, he made it now 
his very body. And this may be said evidently to Tertullian, who 5 
reasoning against heretics useth the commodity of arguing, and 
giveth no doctrine of the sacrament to further this author's pur- 
pose. And what advantage should the heretics have of Tertullian 
if he should mean that these words. This is my body, had only this 
sense. This is the figure of my body, having himself said before, 6 
that Christ made bread his body. If so plain speech, to make 
bread his body, containeth no more certainty in understanding but 
the figure of a body, why should not they say, that a body in 
Christ should ever be spoken of a body in a figure, and so no cer- 
tainty of any true body in Christ by Tertullian*s words ? This 
place of Tertullian is no secret |x>int of learning, and hath been of 


7 CEcolampaditts and other alleged, and by other catholic men an- BOOK 
swered unto it, whereof this author may not think now as upon a m* 
wrangling argument to satisfy a conjecture devised, thereby to 

8 confirm a new teaching. Finally, Tertullian termeth it not an 
only figure, which this author must prove, or else he doth nothing. 

Oh, what a wrangling and wresting is here made, whatTertoilian 
crooks be cast, what leaping about is here to avoid a foil ! ?"^ "„!* 
And yet I refer to any indifferent man that shall read thefifl^"!^'* 
place of Tertullian, to judge whether you have truly ex- 
pounded him, or in the wrestling with him be quite over- 

1 thrown, and have a flat fall upon your back. For Tertul- 
lian saith not, that the bread was a figure of Christ's body 
only in the prophet, (as you expound Tertullian) but saith, 
that bread and wine were figures in the Old Testament, and 
so taken in the prophets, and now be figures again in the New 
Testament, and so used of Christ himself in his last supper. 

2 And where Tertullian saith, that Christ made bread his 
body, he expoundeth himself how Christ made bread his 
body, adding by and by these words, ^^ that is to say, a 
*< figure of his body.^ But if thou canst forbear, good reader, 
when thou readest the fond handling of Tertullian by this 
ignorant and subtle lawyer, I pray thee laugh not, for it is 
no matter to be laughed at, but to be sorrowed, that the 
most andent authors of Christ'^s Church should thus be 
eluded in so weighty causes. O Lord, what shall these men 
answer to thee at the last day, when no cavillations shall 
have place ? These be Tertullian*s words, ^^ Jesus taking 
<< bread, and distributing it among his disciples, made it his 
*^ body, saying. This is my body ; that is to say, a figure of 
^^ my body.^ Here Tertullian expoundeth not the saying 
of the Prophet but the saying of Christ, This is my body. 
And where Tertullian hath but once the word " This," you 
say ** the first this." And so you make a wise speech to say 
*< the first," where is but one. And Tertullian speaketh of 
<^ this" in Chrisf s words, when he said. This is my body ; 
and you refer them to the Prophet^s words, which be not 
there, but be spoken of long after. And if you had not for- 



BOOK gotten your grammar and all kind of speech, or else hurled 
' away all together purposely, to serve your own wilful device, 
you would have referred the demonstrative to his antecedent 
before, and not to a thing that in order cometh long after. 
And bread in the Prophet was but a figurative speech, but 
in Chrisf s words was not only a figurative speech, but also a 
figurative thing ; that is to say, very material bread, which 
by a figurative speech Christ ordained to be a figure and a 
sacrament of his body. For as the Prophet by this word 
'^ bread^ figured Christ^s body, so did Christ himself insti- 
tute very material bread to be a figure of his body in the sa- 
crament. But you refer *^ this^ to the bread in the Prophet, 
which Christ spake, as Tertullian saith, of the bread in the 
Gospel. And Christy's words must needs be understanded of 
the bread which he gave to his Apostles, in the time of the 
gospel, after he had ended the supper of the law. And if 
Christ made the bread in the Prophet his very body, which 
was no material bread, but this word "bread,^ then did 
Christ make this word <* bread*" his body, and converted this 
word *^ bread^ into the substance of his body. This is the con- 
clusion of your subtle sophistication of Tertullian'^s words. 

Now as concerning St. Cyprian, whom you here allege, he 3 
spake of a sacramental, and not of a corporal and carnal con- 
version, as shall be plainly declared, when I come to the 
place of Cyprian, and partly I have declared already in 
mine other book. 

And Tertullian proved not in that place the verity of 4 
Chrisf s body by the figure of the Prophet, but by the 
figure which Christ ordained of his body in his last supper. 
For he went not about to prove that Christ should have a 
body, but that he had then a true body, because he ordain- 
ed a figure thereof, which could have had no figure, as Ter- 
tullian saith, if it had been but a fantastical body, and no 
true body in deed. 

Wherefore this which you say in answering to the plain 5 
words of Tertullian, may be said of them that care not what 
they say, but it cannot be said evidently, that is spoken so 


6 But if 8o plain speech of Tertullian, say you, that Christ BOOK 
made bread his body, contain no more certainty in under^ '"' 
standing but the figure of a body, why should not the body 

of Christ ever be taken for a figure, and so no certainty of 
any true body to be in Christ ? This reason had been liiore 
fit to be made by a roan that had lost both his wit and rea- 
son. For in this place Tertullian must needs be so under- 
stand, that by the body of Christ is understand the figure 
of his body, because Tertullian so expoundeth it himself. 
And must it be always so, because it is here so ? Must ever 
Christ'^s body be taken for a figure, because it is here taken 
for a figure, as Tertullian saith ? Have you so forgotten 
your logic, that you will make a good argument, aparticu^ 
lari ad universale f By your own manner of argumentation, 
because you make a naughty argument here in this place, 
shall I conclude that you never make none good ? Surely 
this place of Tertullian, as you have handled it, is neither 
secret nor manifest point, either of learning, wit, or reason, 
but a mere sophistication, if it be no worse. 

7 What other papists have answered to this place of Tertul- 
lian, I am not ignorant, nor I am sure you be not so igno- 
rant but you know, that never none answered as you do. 
But your answer varieth as much from all other papists, as 
yours and theirs also do vary from the truth. 

Here the reader may note by the way, how many foul 
shifts you make to avoid the saying of Tertullian. First 
you say, that bread was a figure in the Prophet^s mouth, 
but not in Christ^s words. Second, that the thing which 
the Prophet spake of, was not that which Christ spake of. 
Third, that other have answered this place of Tertullian be- 
fore. Fourth, that you call this matter but a wrangling ar- 
gument. Fifth, that if Tertullian call bread a figure, yet 
he termeth it not an only figure. These be your shifts. 
Now let the reader look upon TertuUian^s plain words, 
which I have rehearsed in my book, and then let him judge 
whether you mean to declare TertuUian'^s mind truly or no. 

8 And it is not requisite for 9iy purpose, to prove that bread 
is only a figure, for I take upon me there to prove no more, 



BOOK but that the bread is a figure, representing Chrisfs body, 
'^^' and the wine his blood. And if bread be a figure, and not 

only a figure, then must you make bread both the figure 
and the truth of the figure. Now hear what other authors 
I do here aDege. 

[See vol. ii. p. 882—384. " And St. Cyprian'' 

" flesh and blood.''] 


Cyprianns. CvPRiAN shall be touched after, when we speak of him again, i 

Chrysos- Chrysostome shall open himself hereafter plainly. 

Hi"ro m "^^^ ^*^^™® speakcth here very pithily, using the word " repre- a 
'* sent," which signifieth a true real exhibition -, for St. Hierome 
speaketh of the representation of the truth of Christ's body, which 
truth excludeth an only figure. For howsoever the visible matter 
of the sacrament be a figure, the invisible part is a truth ; which 
St. Hierome saith is here represented, that is to say, made pre- 
sent, which only signification doth not. 

Ambrosius. St. Ambrose shall after declare himself, and it is not denied 3 
but that authors, in speaking of the sacrament, used these words, 
sign, figure, similitude, token ; but those speeches exclude not the 
verity and truth of the body and blood of Christ, for no approved 

No author author hath this exclusive, to say an only sign, an only token, an 

saith, " an Q^y similitude, or an only signification, which is the issue with 4 

figure." this author. 


Here you shift off St. Cyprian and Chrysostom with fwr 

promise to make answer to them hereafter, who approve 

plainly my saying, that the bread representeth Christ's body 

and the wine his blood, and so you answer here only to St. 

Hierony. Hierom. In answering to whom you were loth, I see well, 

™"»- to leave behind any thing that might have any colour to 

Represent. ™*'^® ^^^ V^^f ^^^^ expound this word " r^resent" in St. 1 

Hierom, to signify real exhibition. Here appeareth that 

you can, when you list, change the signification of words, 

that can make vocare to signify j/Scer^, and Jacere to signify 

sacrificare, as you do in your last book. And why should 

you not then in other words, when it will serve for like pur- 


poses, have the like liberty to change the signification of BOOK 
words when you list ? And if this word ** represent^ in '"' 
St. Hierom^s words signify real exhibition, then did M el- 
cfaisedech really exhibit Christ's flesh and blood, who, as the 
same St. Hierom saith, did represent his flesh and blood by 
offering bread and wine, 
a And yet in the Lord^s Supper rightly used is Christ'^s 
body exhibited in deed spiritually, and so really, if you take Really, 
really to signify only a spiritual and not a corporal and car- 
nal exhibition. But this real and spiritual exhibition is to 
the receivers of the sacrament, and not to the bread and 

3 And mine issue in this place is no more, but to prove that 
these sayings of Christ, This u my body. This is my blood, 
be figurative speeches, signifying that the bread repre- 
senteth Chrisf s body, and the wine his blood, which foras- 
much as you confess, there needed no great contention in 
this point, but that you would seem in words to vary, where 
we agree in the substance of the matter, and so take occa- 
taan to make a long book, where a short would have served. 

4 And as for the exclusive *^ only,^ many of the authors, as 
I proved before, have the same exclusive, or other words 
equivalent thereto. And as for the sacramental signs, they 
be only figures. And of the presence of Christ'^s body, 
yourself hath this exclusive, that Christ is but after a spiri- 
tual manner present, and I say he is but spiritually present. 
Now followeth St. Augustine. 

[See vol. ii. p. 884—888. « And yet St. Augustine'' 
mystical signification.'" 



As for St. Augustine Ad Bonifadumt the author shall perceive his 
fault at Martyn Bucer*8 hand^ who in his Epistle Dedicatory of BacemR. 
his Ennarrations of the Gospels, rehearseth his mind of St. Augus- 
tine in this wise : " Est^ scribit dtvus Augustinus^ secundum quen- 
" dam modum sacramentum corporis Christi, corpus Christi, sacra- 
*' mentum sanguinis Christi, sanguis Christi ; at secundum quern 
'* modum ? Ut significet tantum corpus et sanguinem Domini ab- 


BOOK '* aentia ? Absit» honorari enim et percipi io symbolis viaibilibus cor- 
'^ pus et sanguinein Domini, idem passim scribit.*' These words 
of Bucer may be thus Englished. ** St. Augustine writeth, the 
*' sacrament of the body of Christ is after a certain manner the 
** body of Christy the sacrament of the blood of Christ, the blood 
*' of Christ. But after what manner? that it should signify only the 
" body and blood absent ? AbsU, In no wise -, for the same St. Au- % 
" gustine writeth in many places, the body and blood of Christ to 
** be honoured and to be received in those risible tokens.*' Thus 
saith Bucer, who understandeth not St. Augustine to say the sacra- 
ment of Christ's body to be Christ's body after a certain manner of 
speech, as this author doth ; nor St. Augustine hath no such words, 
but only ** secundum quendam modum," " after a certain manner^** 3 
whereunto to put "of speech,*' is an addition more than truth requir- 
ed of necessity. In these words of Bucer may appear his whole 
judgment concerning St. Augustine, who affirmeth the very true 
presence of the thing signiOed in the sacrament ; which truth esta- 
blished in the matter, the calling it a sign, or a token, a 6gure, a 
similitude, or a showing, maketh no matter when we understand the 
thing really present that is signified. Which, and it were not in deed 
in the sacrament, why should it after Bucer*s true understanding^ 
of St. Augustine be honoured there } Arguing upon men's speeches 
may be without end and the authors upon diverse respects speak 
Aathon for of one thing diversely. Therefore we should resort to the pith 
^P^^f^ and knot of the matter, and see what they say in expounding the 
read, where special place, without contention^ and not what they utter in the 
^^ d^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^' dbputation, ne to search their dark and ambiguous 5 
matter places, wherewith to confound that they speak openly and plainly. 

contention. Canterbury. 

M.^ikioer What need you to bring Martyn Bucer to make me an- i 
swer, if you could answer yourself? But because you be 
ashamed of the matter, you would thrust Martjm Bucer in 
your place, to receive the rebuke for you. But in this place 
he easeth you nothing at all, for he saith no more, but that 
the body and blood of Christ be exhibited unto the worthy 
receivers of the sacrament, which is true, but yet spiritually, 
not corporally. 

The true And I never said that Christ is utterly absent, but I ever , 

chirirt** ^^aflSrmed, that he is truly and spiritually present, and truly 




and spiritually exhibited unto the godly receivers: but cor- book 
porally is he neither in the receivers, nor in or under the ^^^' 
forms of bread and wine^ as you do teach clearly without 
the consent of Master Bucer, who writeth no such thing. 

3 And where I allege of St. Augustine, that the sacrament 
of ChrisTs body is called Christ^s body, after a certain man- 
ner of speech, and you deny that St. Augustine meant of a 
certain manner of speech, but saith only, after a certain 
manner : read the place of St. Augustine who will, and he 
shall find that he speaketh of the manner of speech^ and 
that of such a manner of speech, as calleth one thing by the 
name of another, where it is not the very thing in deed. 
For of the manner of speech is all the process there, as ap- 
peareth by these his words : *^ A day or two before Good- 
** Friday, we use in common speech to say. To-morrow, or 

this day two days, Christ suffered^ &c* Likewise upon 
Easter day we say. This day Christ rose.^ And ** Why do 
no men reprove us as liars when we speak in this sort?^ And, 
** We call those days so by a similitude/^ &c. And '^ So it is 
*^ called that day, which is not that day in deed."" And *< Sacra- 
'^ ments commonly have the name of the things whereof they 
** be sacraments. Therefore, as after a certain manner the sa- 
*' crament of Christ^s body is Christ^s body ; so likewise the 
*' sacrament of faith is faith. And likewise saith St. Paul, that 
*^ in baptism we be buried ; he saith not, that we signify 
*^ burial, but he saith plainly that we be buried : so that the 
*' sacrament of so great a thing is called by the name of the 
'' thing.*" All these be St. Augustine^s words, showing how 
in the common use of speech one thing may have the name 
of another. Wherefore, when Doctor Gardyner saith, that 
St Augustine spake not of the manner of speech^ thou 
mayest believe him hereafter as thou shalt see cause, but 
if thou trust his words too much, thou shalt soon be de- 

4 As for the real presence of Christ in the sacrament, I grant ReaUy. 
that he is really present, after such sort as you expound 
really in this place, that is to say, in deed, and yet but spi- 
rituidly ; for you say yourself that he is but after a spiritual 


BOOK manner there, and so is he spiritually honoured, as St. Au- 

Iff • X ■' 

• ij^tine saith. 

Really. But as concerning heat of disputation, mark well the 5 

words of St Augustine, good reader, cited in my book, and 
thou shalt see clearly, that all this multiplicaUon of words is 
rather a juggling than a direct answer; for St. Augustine 
writeth not in heat of disputation, but temperately and 
gravely, to a learned bishop his dear friend, who demanded 
a question of him. And if St. Augustine had answered in 
heat of disputation, or for any other respect, otherwise than 
the truth, he had not done the part of a friend, nor of a 
learned and godly bishop. And whosoever judgeth so of 
St. Augustine, hath small estimation of him, and showeth 
himself to have little knowledge of St Augustine. 

But in this your answer to St. Augustine, you utter where 
AibertoB you learned a good part of your divinity^ that is, of Albertus 
PigfaiuB. pighius, who is the father of this shift, and with this sloght 
eludeth St. Augustine, when he could none otherwise an- 
swer : as you do now shake off the same St. Augustine, 
resembling as it were in that point the lively countenance 
of your father Pighius. Next in my book foUoweth Theo- 

[See vol. ii. p. 888—895. " And to this purpose'" 

" This is my blood.''] 


llieodo- ^^^ author bringeth in Theodoret, a Greek, whom to discuss 
retas. particularly, were loog and tedious : one notable place there is in 
him which toucheth the point of the matter ; which place Peter 
Martyr allegetb in Greek and then translateth it into Latin ; not 
exactly as other have done, to the truth, but as he hath done, I 
will write in here. And then will I write the same translate into 
English, by one that hath translate Peter Martyr's book, and then 
will I add the translation of this author, and finally the very truth 
of the Latin, as I will abide by, and join an bsue with this author 
in it, whereby thou, reader, shall perceive with what sincerity 
things be handled. 
Y. Martyr. Peter Martyr hath of Theodorete this in Latin, which the same 


Theodorete^ in a disputation with an heretic, maketh the catholic BOOK 
man to say. " Captus es iis qu« tetenderas retibus. Neque enim . 
'' post sanctiBcationem, mystica symbola ilia propria sua nature 
'* ^pnediuntur, manent enim in priori sua substantia, et figure, et 
'' specie, adeoque, et videntur, et palpantur, quemadmodum et 
" antea. Intelliguntur autem quae facta sunt, et creduntur, et 
" adorantur, tanquam ea existentia, quae creduntur.** He that 
translated Peler Martyr in English doth express these words thus : 
" ho, thou art now caught in the same net which thou hadst set to 
" catch me in. For those same mystical signs do not depart away 
out of their own proper nature, after the hallowing of them. 
For they remain still in their former substance, and their former 
" shape, and their former kind, and are even as well seen and felt 
** as they were afore. But the things that are done are under- 
*' standed, and are believed and are worshipped, even as though 
'' they were in very deed the things that are believed." This is 
the common translation into English in Peter Martyr's book 
translated, which this author doth translate after his fieishion thus : 
'' Thou art taken with thine own net, for the sacramental signs 
*' go not firom their own nature after the sanctification, but con- 
" tinue in their former substance, form, and figure, and be seen 
'* and touched as well as before. Yet in our minds we do oon- 
" sider what they be made, and do repute and esteem them, and 
** have them in reverence according to the same things that they 
** be taken for.** 

Thus is the translation of this author. Mine English of this 
Latin is thus. " Thou art taken with the same nets thou didst 
** lay forth. For the mystical tokens after the sanctification go 
not away out of their proper nature 5 for they abide in their for- 
mer substance, shape, and form, and so hr forth that they may be 
seen and felt as they might before. But they be understanded 
*' that they be made, and are believed and are worshipped as being 
" the same things which be believed.** This is my translation, 
who in the first sentence mean not to vary from the other trans- 
lations, touching the remain of substance, shape, form, or figure. 
I will use all those names. But in the second part, where Tbeo- 
dorete speaketh of our behef what the tokens be made, and where 
he saith those tokens be worshipped as being the same things 
which be believed, thou mayest see, reader, how this author flyeth 
the words *< believe** and " worship,'* which the common trans- 




BOOK lation in English doth plainly and truly express, howsoever that 
^^^' translator swerved by colour of the word tanquamt which there, 
after the Greek, signifieth the truth, and not tlie similitude only; 
like as in St. Paul, Vocat ea qtut n<m tuni, tcmquam sintf which is 
to make to be in deed, not as though they were. And the Greek 
is there «« &Ta, as it is here &avtp ixu^a &Ta. And it were an ab- > 
surdity to believe things otherwise than they be, as though they 
were, and very idolatry to worship wittingly that is not, as though 
it were in deed. And therefore in these two words that they be 
believed that they be made and be worshipped, is declared by 
Theodorete his &ith of the very true real presence of Christ's glo- 
rious flesh, whereunto the Deity is united ; which flesh, St. Augus- 
tine consonantly to this Theodorete sud, must be worshipped be- 
fore it be received. The word ** worshipping" put here in English is 
to express the word adorantur put by Peter in Latin, signifying 
adoring, being the verb in Greek of such signiflcation, as is used 
to express godly worship with bowing of the knee. Now, reader, 
what should I say by this author, that conveyeth these two words, 
of believing and worshipping ; and instead of them, cometh in with 
reverence, taking, reputing, and esteeming, whereof thou mayest 
Adoratioii esteem how this place of Theodorete pinched this author, who 
cnunent' ^^"^^ ^^^ ^"^ *^ ^^^^ adoring of the sacrament signifieth the pre- 
[1580.] sence of the body of Christ to be adored, which else were an ab- 
surdity, and therefore the author took pain to ease it with other 
words of calling, believing, reputing, and esteeming, and for ador- 
ation, reverence. Consider what praise this author giveth Theo- 
dorete, which praise condemneth this author sore. For Theodo- 
rete in his doctrine would have us believe the mystery, and adore 
the sacrament, where this author after in his doctrine professeth 
there is nothing to be worshipped at all. If one should now say 
to me. Yea sir, but this Theodorete seemeth to condemn transub- 
stantiation, because he speaketh so of the bread : thereunto shall 
be answered when I speak of transubstantiation, which shall be 
after the third and fourth book discussed. For before the truth 
of the presence of the substance of Christ's body may appear, what 
should we talk of transubstantiation ? I will trftvail no more in 
Theodorete^ but leave it to thy judgment, reader, what credit this 3 
author ought to have that handleth the matter after this sort. 

' [The degree, in which the believers in transubstantiation were em- 
barrassed by this passage in TheodoreC, may be estimated by the means 



Canterbury. ni. 

This Uadder is so puffed up with wind, that it is marvel 
it bursteth not. But be patient a while, good reader, and 
suffer until the blast of wind be past, and thou shalt see a 
great calm, the bladder broken, and nothing in it, but all 

There is no difference between your translation and mine, 
saving that mine is more plain, and pveth less occasion of 
error: and yours, as all your doings be, is dark and ob- 
scure, and containeth in it no little provocation to idolatry. 
For the words of Theodorete, after your interpretation, con- 
tain both a plain untruth, and also manifest idolatry : for 
the signs and tokens which he speaketh of, be the very forms 
and substances of bread and wine. For the nominative case 
to the verb of adoring in Theqdoret, is not the body and 
blood of Christ, but the mystical tokens, by your own trans- 

'lation, which mystical tokens if you will have to be the 
very body and blood of Christ, what can be spoken more 
untrue or more foolish ? And if you will have them to be 
worshipped with godly worship, what can be greater idolatry? 
Wherefore I, to eschew such occasions of error, have tran- 
slated the words of Theodoretus faithfully and truly, as his 
mind was, and yet have avoided all occasions of evil ; for 

a Umquam^ or Anrcp ^nceu^a Svra^ signifieth not the truth, as you 
say, but is an adverb of similitude, as it is likewise in this 
place of St. Paul : VoaU ea quuB non sunt, tanquam smt. 

to which tliey resorted for evadinff it. Among others, as Ridley states, 
they did not scruple to maintain Siat ''Theodoret understandeth by the 
** word < substance/ accidents, and not substance in deed i** a shift 
which he justly compares to the gloss of a lawyer on a decree that 
was against him, beginning with the word ' statuimus.' '^ Statuimus," 
laith he, ^ id est, abrogamus.^ Ridley, Declaration of the Lord's Supper^ 
p. 25. 

Another mode of disposing of this inconvenient testimony is related 
by Jewell. " One John Clement, an Englishman, rent and burnt some 
" leaves of Theodoret, a most ancient father and a Greek bishop, in the 
** presence of several persons of good worth and credit, believing that 
** another copy of that book was no where to be found, because this 
** fiither had perspicuously and clearly taught, that the nature of the 
" bread was not abolished in the Eucharist.'^ Jewell, Apology. See 
also Defence of the Apf^ogy.l 


BOOK For St. Paul saith, As though they were; which in deed 
were not, as he said the next word before ; non sunt, they be 


not. And nevertheless, unto Grod all things be present, and 
those things which in their nature be not yet present, unto 
Grod were ever present; in whom be not these successions of 
time, before and after, for Christ the Lamb in his present 
was slain before the world began, and a thousand year to 
Apoc. ziii. his eyes be but as it were yesterday, and one day before 
sPeM^r ^™ is as it were a thousand year, and a thousand year as 
one day. 

And if you had read and considered a saying of St. Au- 
gustine, De Doctrina Christiana^ hb. iii. cap. 9. you might 
have understanded this place of Theodoret better than you 
do. '< He serveth under a sign,^ saith St Augustine, *^ who 
<< worketh or worshipped! any sign, not knowing what it 
»gnifieth. But he that worketh or worshippeth a profit- 
able sign ordained of God, the strength and signification 
<^ whereof he understandeth, he worshippeth not that which 
<' is seen and is transitory, but rather that thing whereto all 
'' such signs ought to be referred.^ And anon after he 
saith further. *' At this time when our Lord Jesus Christ 
^ is risen, we have a most manifest argument of our free- 
*< dom, and be not burdened with the heavy yoke of signs, 
*^ which we understand not, but the Lord and the teaching 
^' of his Apostles hath given to us a few signs for many, 
^' and those most easy to be done, most excellent in under- 
*< standing, and in performing most pure ; as the sacrament 
<^ of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of 
" our Lord, which every man when he receiveth, knoweth 
whereunto they be referred, being taught, that he wor- 
ship not them with a carnal bondage, but rather with a 
spiritual freedom. And as it is a vile bondage to follow 
the letter, and to take the signs for the things signified by 
<' them, so to interpret the »gns to no profit, is an error 
" that shrewdly spreadeth abroad."^ These words of St. 
Augustine being conferred with the words of Theodoret, 
may declare plainly what Theodorete'^s meaning was. For 
where he saith that we may not worship with a carnal bon- 





dage the visible ngDS^ (meaning of water in baptism, and book 
of bread and wine in the holy communion,) when we receive ^^^' 
the same, but rather ought to worship the things where- 
unto they be referred, he meant that, although those signs 
or sacraments, of water, bread, and wine, ought highly to 
be esteemed, and not to be taken as other common water, 
baker^s bread, or wine in the tavern, but as signs dedicated, 
consecrated, and referred to an holy use, and by those earthly 
things to represent things celestial ; yet the very true honour 
and worship ought to be pven to the celestial things, which 
by the visible signs be understanded, and not to the visible 
signs themselves. And nevertheless both St. Augustine and 
Theodorete count it a certain kind of worshipping the signs, 
the reverent esteeming of them above other common and 
pi*ofane things, and yet the same principally to be referred 
to the celestial things represented by the signs : and there- 
fore saith St. Augustine, *^ potius,^ *^ rather.'" And this wor- 
ship is as well in the sacrament of baptism, as in the sacra- 
ment of Christ^s body and blood. And therefore, although 
whosoever is baptized unto Christ, or eateth his flesh and 
drinketh his blood in his holy Supper, do first honour him, 
yet is he corporally and carnally neither in the Supper nor 
in baptism, but spiritually and effectually. 
3 Now where you leave the judgment of Theodorete to the 
reader, even so do I also, not doubting but the indifferent 
reader shall soon espy how little cause you have so to boast 
and blow out your vainglorious words as you do. But 
hear now what foUoweth next in my book. 

[See vol. ii. p. 395—899. " And marvel not''.! 

« every man.''] 


As for the use of figurative speeches to be accustomed in Scrip- 
ture is not denied. But Philip Melancthon, in au epistle to (£co- Melanc- 
lampadius of the sacrament, giveth one good note of observation ^ °^' 
in difference between the speeches in God's ordinances and com^ 
I mandments, and otherwise. For if io the undemtauding of God's 
ordinances and commandments figures may be often received, 



BOOK truth Hhall by allegories be shortly subverted, and all our religion 
^' reduced to significations. There is no speech so plain and simple. 
The speech bm \i h^th some piece of a figuratiire speech, but such as express- 
tare, wbere^th the common plain understanding, and then the common use 
God com- of the figure causeth it to be taken as a common proper speech, 
ordereth, is As these speeches. Drink up this cup, or Eat this dish, is in deed 
spiritaally ^ figurative speech, but by custom made so common that it is re- 
sidered. ' puted the plain speech, because it hath but one only understand- 
Figuratire j^g commonly received. And when Christ said, This cup u the 
custom ^^^^ testament, the proper speech thereof in letter hath an ab- 
made pro- surdity in reason and faith also. But when Christ said. This is my 2 
[1580.] body, although the truth of the literal sense hath an absurdity in 
carnal reason, yet hath it no absurdity in humility of faith, nor re- 
pugneth not to any other tnith of Scripture. And seeing it is a 
singular miracle of Christ whereby to exercise us in the faith, un- 
derstanded as the plain words signify in their proper sense, 
there can no reasoning be made of other figurative speeches to 
make this to be their fellow and like unto them. No man deni- 
eth the use of figurative speeches in Christ*s supper, but such as 
be equal with plain proper speech, or be expounded by other Evan- 
gelists in plain speech. 

I see well you would take a dung fork to fight with, ra- 
ther than you would lack a weapon. For how highly you 
have esteemed Melancthon in times past, it is not unknown. 
But whatsoever Melancthon sayeth, or howsoever you un- 
derstand Melancthon, where is so convenient a place to use 
figurative speeches as wlien figures and sacraments be insti- 
stuted ? And St. Augustine giveth a plain rule how we may 
know when God^s commandments be given in figurative 
speeches, and yet shall neither the truth be subverted, nor 
our religion reduced to significations. And how can it be, 
but that in the understanding of God^s ordinances and com- 1 
mandments* figures must needs be often received, (contrary 
to Melancthon^s saying,) if it be true that you say, that there 
is no speech so plain and simple but it hath some piece of 
a figurative speech. But now be all speeches figurative, 
when it pleaseth you. What need I then to travail any 
more to prove that Christ in his supper used figurative 


speeches, seeing that all that he spake was spoken in figures, BOOK 
by your saying ? ' 

And these words, Thts is my bock/y spoken of the bread, 
and, T%is is my bloody spoken of the cup, express no plain 
common understanding, whereby the common use of these 
figures should be equal with plain proper speeches, or cause 
them to be taken as common proper speeches, for you say 
yourself that these speeches in letter have an absurdity in 
reason. And as they have absurdity in reason, so have they 
absurdity in faith. For neither is there any reason, faith, 
miracle, nor truth, to say that material bread is Christ^s 
body. For then it must be true that his body is mate- 
rial bread, a conversa cul convertentem, for of the mate- 
rial bread spake Christ those words by your own confes- 
sion. And why have not these words of Christ, This is my 
body, an absurdity both in faith and reason, as well as these 
words. This cup is the new testameniy seeing that these 
words were spoken by Christ, as well as the other, and the 
credit of him is all one, whatsoever he sayeth ? 

But if you will needs understand these words of Christ, 
This is my body, as the plain words signify in their proper 
sense, as in the end you seem to do, repugning therein to 
your own former saying, you shall see how far you go, not 
only from reason, but also from the true profession of the 
Christian faith. Christ spake of bread, say you. This is 
my body^ appointing by this word, this, the bread : where- 
of foUoweth, as I said before, if bread be his body, that 
his body is bread ; and if his body be bread, it is a crea- 
ture without sense and reason, having neither life nor soul ; 
which is horrible of any Christian man to be heard or 
spoken. Hear now what foUoweth further in my book. 

[See vol. ii. p. 899—401. " Now forasmuch'' 

" answered unto.""] 


In the 74th leaf this author goeth about to give a general so- 
hition to all that may be said of Christ*s being in earth, in heaven, 
or in the sacrament, and giveth instructions bow these words of 




BOOK Chrittt's divine nature, figuratively, spiritually, really, carnally, 
_J[!L-^ corporally, may be placed ; and thus he saith : Christ in his divine i 
nature may be said to be in the earth, figuratively in the sacra- 
ment, spiritually in the man that receivetb, but really, carnally, 
corporally, only in heaven. Let us consider the placing of these 
terms. When we say, Christ is in bis divine nature every where, 
is he not really also every where, according to the true essence of 
his Godhead, in deed every where > that is to say, not in phan- 
tasy nor imagination, but verily, truly, and therefore really, as we 
believe, so in deed every where } And when Christ is spiritually in 
good men by grace, is not Christ in them really by grace, but in 
phantasy and imagination ? And therefore whatsoever this author 
saith, the word really may not have such restraint, to be referred 
only to heaven, unless the author would deny the substance of 
the Godhead, which, as it comprehendeth all, being incomprehen- 
sible, and is every where without limitation of place, so as it is, 
truly it is, in deed is, and therefore really is : and therefore of 
Christ must be said, wheresoever he is in his divine nature by 
power or grace, he is there really, whether we speak of heaven or 
Carnally. As for the terms carnally and corporally, as this author seemeth 
9^"S?^^^' to use them in other places of this book, to express the manner 
of presence of the human nature in Christ* I marvel by what 
Scripture he will prove that Christ's body is so carnally and cor- 
porally in heaven. We be assured by &ith, grounded upon the 
Scriptures, of the truth of the being of Christ's flesh and body 
there* and the same to be a true flesh and a true body 3 but yet in 
such sense as this author useth the terms carnal and corporal 
against the sacrament, to imply a grossness, he cannot so attri- 
bute those terms to Christ's body in heaven. St. Augustine, after 
the gross sense of carnally, saith, " Christ reigneth not carnally in 
" heaven^." And Gregory Nazianzen saith, " Although Christ 
" shall come in the last day to judge, so as he shall be seen : yet 
*' there is in him no grossness"," he saith, and referreth the 
manner of his being to his knowledge only. And our resurrec- 
tion, St. Augustine saith, although it shall be of our true flesh, 
yet it shall not be carnally. And when this author hath de- 
famed, as it were, the terms carnally and corporally, as terms of 

' August. De Civitat, Dei. ^ Gregor. Nazianzen. De Bapti$mo. 


groesDess, to whom he used always to put as an adveraadye the BOOK 
term spiritually, as though camally and spiritually might not agree '^'* 

a in one : now for all that he would place them both in heaven. """"""" 
where is no carnality, but ail the manner of being spiritual 3 
where is no grossness at all, the secrecy of the manner of which 
life is hidden from us. and such as eye hath not seen, or ear 
beard, or ascended into the heart and thought of man. 

I know these terms, carnally and corporally, may have a good How Christ 
understanding out of the mouth of him that had not defamed ™^^ '^'^ 
them with gros.^ness, or made them adversaries to spiritual ; and rally and 
a man may say Christ is corporally in heaven, because the truth ^'"'^^^y ■'* 
of his body is there, and carnally in heaven, because his flesh is [1580.] 
truly there ; but in this understanding, both the words carnally 
and corporally may be coupled with the word spiritually, which 
is against this author's teaching, who appointeth the word spirit- 
ually to be spoken of Christ*s presence in the man that received 
the sacrament worthily, which speech I do not disallow : but as 
Christ is spiritually in the man that doth receive the sacrament 
worthily ; so is he in him spiritually before he receive, or else he 
cannot receive worthily, as I have before said. And by this ap- 
peareth, how this author, to frame his general solution, hath used 
neither of the termsv really, carnally, corporally, or spiritually, in 
a convenient order, but hath in his distribution misused them no- 
tably. For Christ in his divine nature is really every where, and Christ is 
in his human nature is carnally and corporally, as these words ^i^ ncm- 
siguify substance of fl&nh and body, continually in heaven to the p^^t as he 
day of judgment, and nevertheless afler that signi6cation present y^gri 580.] 
in the sacrament abo. And in those terms in that signt6cation 
the fuhers have spoken of the sacrament, as in the particular so- 
lutions to the authors hereafter shall appear. Mary, as touching 

3 the use of the word flguratively, to say that Christ is figuratively in 
the bread and wine, is a saying which this author hath not proved 
at all, but is a doctrine before this divers times reproved, and now 
by this author in England renewed. 


Although my chief study be to speak so plainly that all 

men may underatand every thing what I say, yet nothing 

is plain to him that will find knots in a rush. For when I 

I say, that all sentences which declare Christ to be here in 



BOOK earth, and to be eaten and drunken of Christian people, are 
to be understanded either of his divine nature, (whereby 

he is every where,) or else they must be understanded figura- 
tively or spiritually : (for figuratively he is in the bread and 
wine, and spiritually he is in them that worthily eat and 
drink the bread and wine, but really, carnally, and corpo- 
rally he is only in heaven :) you have termed these my 
words as it liketh you, but far otherwise than I either wrote 
or meant, or than any indifferent reader would have ima- 
gined. For what indifferent reader would have gathered of 
my words, that Christ in his divine nature is not really in 
heaven ? For I make a disjunctive, wherein I declare a plain 
distinction between his divine nature and his human na* 
ture : and of his divine nature I say, in the first member 
of my division, which is in the beginning of my aforesaid 
words, that by that nature he is every where ; and all the 
rest that foUoweth is spoken of his human nature, whereby 
he is carnally and corporally only in heaven. 
Really. And as for this word *^ really,^ in such a sense as you ex- 

pound it, that is to say, not in phantasy nor imagination, 
but verily and truly, so I grant that Christ is really, not 
only in them that duly receive the sacrament of the Lord''s 
Supper, but also in them that duly receive the sacrament of 
baptism, and in all other true Christian people at other 
times when they receive no sacrament. For all they be 
the members of Christ^s body, and temples in whom he truly 
inhabiteth, although corporally and really, (as the papists 
take that word really,) only in heaven and not in the 
sacrament. And although in them that duly receive the 
sacrament, he is truly and in deed, and not by fancy and 
imagination, and so really, (as you understand really,) yet is 
he not in them corporally, but spiritually, as I say, and only 
after a spiritual manner, as you say. 
Carnally And as for these words, ** carnally^ and ** corporally,^ I 
ud oorpo. defame them not, for I mean by carnally and corporally none 
otherwise, than after the form and fashion of a man''s body, 
as we shall be after our resurrection ; that is to say, viable, 
palpable, and circumscribed, having a very quantity, with due 


proportion and distinction of members, in place and order one BOOK 
from another. And if you will deny Christ so to be in hea- "^' 
ven, I have so plain and manifest Scriptures against you, 
that I will take you for no Christian roan, except that you 
revoke that error. For sure I am, that Chrisfs natural Grossly, 
body hath such a grossness, or stature and quantity, if you 
will so call it, because the word ^^ grossness,^ grossly taken, 
as you understand it, soundeth not well in an incorruptible 
and immortal body. Marry, as for any other grossness, 
as of eating, drinking, and gross avoiding of the same, 
with such other like corruptible grossness, it is for gross 
lieads to imagine or think, either of Christ, or of any body 

And although St. Augustine may say, that Christ reign- Augrusti- 
eth not carnally in heaven, yet he saith plainly, that his°""' 
Ixxly is of such sort, that it is circumscribed and contained 
in one place. 

And Gregory Nazianzene meant, that Christ should not Naziaoze- 
come at the last judgment in a corruptible and mortal flesh, ""^' 
as he had before his resurrection, and as we have in this mor- 
tal life, (for such grossness is not to be attributed to bodies 
glorified) but yet shall he come with such a body, as he hath 
since his resurrection, absolute and perfect in all parts and 
members of a man^s body, having hands, feet, head, mouth, 
side, and wounds, and all other parts of a man visible and 
sensible, like as we shall appear before him at the same last 
day, with this same flesh in substance that we now have, 
and with these same eyes shall we see God our Saviour. 
Marry, to what fineness and pureness our bodies shall be 
then changed, no man knoweth in the peregrination of this 
world, saving that St. Paul saith, that he shall cha/nge thisVmAW, 
xnte bodyy that he may niake it like unto his glorious body. 
But that we shall have diversity of all members, and a due 
proportion of men^s natural bodies, the Scripture manifestly 
declareth, whatsoever you can by a sinister gloss gather of 
Nazianzene to the contrary, that glorified Ixxlies have no 
flesh nor grossness. 

But see you not how much this saying of St. Augustine 

p 4 


BOOK << that our resurrection shall not be carnally'" maketh against 


. yourself? For if we shall not rise carnally, then is not Christ 
risen carnally, nor is not in heaven carnally ; and if he be 
not in heaven carnally, how can he be in the sacrament car- 
nally, and eaten and drunken carnally with our mouths, as 
you say he is ? And therefore, as for the terms ** carnally ^^ 
and *^ corporally ,"" it is you that defame them by your gross 
taking of them, and not I, that speak of none other gross- 
ness, but of distinction of the natural and substantial parts, 
without the which no man'^s body can be perfect. 
Whether And whereas here in this process you attribute unto' 
in heaven Christ none other presence in heaven, but spiritual, without 
but after a ^11 manner of grossness or carnality ; so that all the manner 
manner, of being IS spiritual, and none otherwise than he is in the 
An issue, gacrament ; here I join an issue with you for a joint, and for 
the price of a faggot. I wondered all this while that you 
were so ready to grant, that Christ is but after a spiritual 
manner in the sacrament, and now I wonder no more at 
that, seeing that you say he is but after a spiritual manner 
in heaven. And by this means we may say, that he hath 
but a spiritual manhood, as you say that he hath in the sa- 
crament but a spiritual body. And yet some carnal thing 
and grossness he hath in him, for he hath flesh and bones, 
which spirits lack, except that to all this impiety you will 
add, that his flesh and bones also be spiritual things and not 
carnal. And it is not without some strange prognostication, 
that you be now waxed altc^ther so spiritual. 
Figura- Now as concerning the woed ** figuratively,'' what need 

^^ ^* this any proof that Christ is in the sacraments figuratively ? 3 
which is no more to say but sacramentally. And you grant 
yourself, fol. S8^, that Christ, under the figures of visible 
creatures, gave invisibly his precious body. And fol. 80, 
you say, that Christ said, T%is is my body^ using the out- 
ward signs of the visible creatures. And this doctrine was 
never reproved of any catholic man, but hath at all times 
and of all men been allowed without contradiction, saving 
now of you alone. Now foUoweUi my answer to the au- 

▼ [Se€ p. isa] 


thors particularly; and first to St. Clement. My words be BOOK 

[See vol. ii. p. 401—402. " They allege St. Clement 
— -" according to the same.'"] 


Let us now consider what particular auswers thisiauthor devis- 
eth to make to the fathers of the Church, and first what he saith 
to St. Clement's Epistle, his handling whereof is worthy to be noted. 

First, he saith, the Epistle is not Clement's, but feigned, as he Clemeut 
aaith many other things be for their purpose, he saith ; which so* 
lutioQ is short and may be soon learned of naughty men, and 

1 naughtily applied further, as they list ; but this I may say, if this 
Epistle were feigned of the papists, then do they show themselves 
fools, that could feign no better but so as this author might of 
their feigned Epistle gather three notes against them. This au- 
thor*s notes be these. First, that the bread in. the sacrament is 
called the Lord's body, and that the broken bread be called the 

2 pieces and fragments of the Lord's body. Mark well, reader, this 
note that speaketh so much of bread, where the words of the Epi- 
stle, in the part here alleged, name no bread at all. If this author 
hath read so much mention of bread in any other part of the 
Epistle, why bringeth he not that forth to fortify his note ? I have 
read after in the same Epistle panes mnctuariif but they would not 
help this author 8 note, and yet for the other matter joined with 
them, they would slander another way. And therefore, seeing 
this author hath left them out, I will go no further than is here 

3 The calling of bread by enunciation for a name is not material, 
because it signifieth that was, but in that is here alleged is no 
mention of bread to prove the note, and to faithful men the words 
of the Epistle reverently express the remain of the mysteries ; in 
which, when many hosts be offered in the altar, according to the 
multitude that should communicate, those many hosts after con- 
secration be not many bodies of Christ, but of many breads one 
body of Christ. And yet as we teach in England now, in the 
Book of Common Prayer, in every part of that is broken is the 
whole body of our Saviour Christ. Man s words cannot suffice to 
express God's mysteries, nor cannot utter them so as froward rea- 
son shall not find matter to wrangle. And yet, to stay reason may 
suffice, that as in one loaf of bread broken every piece broken is 


BOOK a piece of that bread, aod every piece of the bread broken is in 
' itself a whole piece of bread, and so whole bread, for every piece 
hath an whole substance of bread in it : so we truly speak of the 
host consecrate, to avoid the phantasy of multiplicaUon of Christ's 4 
body, which in all the hosts, and all parts of the hosts, is but one, 
not broken, nor distribute by pieces ; and yet in a speech to tell 
and signify that is broken, called in name the leaving pieces of the 
body, portion of the body, residue of the body, in which never- 
theless each one piece is Christ's whole body. So as this speech 
having a figure, hath it of necessity, to avoid the absurdity, where- 
by to signify a multitude of bodies, which is not so, and the 
sound of the speech Christian ears do abhor. But this I ask, 
where is the matter of this author^s note, that bread is called 
Christ's body ? where there is no word of bread in the words 
alleged, and if there were, as there is not, it were worthy no 
note at all. For that name is not abhorred, and the catholic 
faith teacheth that the fraction is in the outward sign, and not in 
the body of Christ invisibly present, and signified so to be present 
by that visible sign. 

The second note of this author is touching reserving, which 
Clement might seem to deny^ because he ordered the remains 
to be received of the clerks^ thinking so best; not declaring 
expressly that nothing might be reserved to the use of them that 
be absent. The contrary whereof appeareth by Justine the Mar- 
tyr', who testifieth a reservation to be sent to them that were 
sick, who, and they dwell far from the church, as they do in some 
places, it may by chance in the way, or trouble in the sick man, 
tarry till the morning or it be received. And Cyrill writeth ex- 6 
pressly>', that in case it so doth, the mystical benediction (by 
which terms he calleth the sacrament) remaineth still in force. 
When this author findeth fault at hanging up of the sacrament, he 
blameth only his own country and the isles hereabout, which fault 
Lionehod', after he had travelled other countries, found here, 
being the manner of custody in reservation otherwise used than in 
other parts. But one thing this author should have noted of 7 
Clement*s words, when he speaketh of fearing and trembling, 
which, and the bread were never the holier, as this author teacheth, 
and but only a signification, why should any man fear or tremble 

* Justin. Apol. 2. y Cyrillus, Ad Catosyrium, 

* Linnehood wrote a comment of the constitutions provinciaJ of 
England. [1580.] 


8 more in their presence than he doth when he heareth of Christ's BOOK 

supper, the gospel read, or himself or another saying his Creed, 

which in words signify as much as the bread doth, if it be but a 
signification? And Peter Martyr saith, that words signify more 
clearly than these signs do, and saith further in his Disputation Peter 
with Chedsay", that we receive the body of Christ no less by^*"^^'^* 
words than by the sacramental signs; which teaching, if it were A marrcl- 
true, why should this sacrament be trembled at? o*f"peter^^ 

But because this author noteth the Epistle of Clement to be Martyr, 
feigned, I will not make with him any foundation of it, but note to uf .V^'l.. 
the reader the third note, gathered by this author of Clement's mentar}*, 
words } which is, that priests ought not to receive alone, which the Jg gpeaketh 
words of the Epistle prove not. It showeth in deed what was done; like him- 
and how the feast is in deed prepared for the people, as well as the ^ '^^ -i 

9 priest. And I never read any thing of order in law or ceremony> 
forbidding the people to communicate with the priest, but all the 
old prayers and ceremonies sounded as the people did communicate 
with the priest. And when the people is prepared for, and then 
come not, but fearing and trembling forbear to come, that then 
the priest might not receive his part alone, the words of this Epi- 
stle show not. And Clement, in that he speaketh so of leavings, 
seemetb to think of that case of disappointment of the people 
that should come, providing in that case the clerks to receive the 
residue ; whereby should appear, if there were no store of clerks, 

10 but only one clerk, as some poor churches have no more, then a 
man might rather make a note of Clement's mind, that in that 
case one priest might receive all alone, and so upon a chance keep 
the feast alone. But whatsoever we may gather, that note of this 
author remaineth unproved, that the pnest ought not to receive 

1 1 And here I dare therefore join an issue with this author, that An issue, 
none of his three feigned notes is grounded of any words of this 

that he noteth a feigned Epistle, taking the only words that he al- 
ia legeth here. This author, upon occasion of this Epistle, which he 
c*alleth feigned, speaketh more reverently of the sacrament than he 

* [This Disputation was held before Royal Commissioners at Oxford in 
1549, and was published by Martyr at the request of Cranmer, under 
the title of Duputatio de EucharUtuB Sacramenlo habita in ceUberrma 
Univerntaie Oxon. Foxe gives an abstract of it. The whole will be 
found in a volume of Peter Martyr's writini^s on the Eucharist^ printed 
at Zurich in 1569.] 


BOOK doth in other places, which me think worthy to be noted of me. 
^^^^- Here he saith that very Christ himself is not only represented, 
but also spiritually given unto us in this table, for so I understand 
the word '* wherein.** And then if very Christ himself be repre- 
sented and given in the table, the author meaneth not the mate- 
rial table, but by the word " table*' the meat upon the table, as 
. « the word mensa^ a table, doth sicrnify in the sixteenth of the Acts, 

Acts XTl. ^ , 

I Cor. z. and the tenth to the Corinthians. Now if very Christ himself be 
given in the meat, then is he present in the meat to be given. 
So as by this teaching very Christ himself is not only figuratively 
in the table, that is to say, the meat of the table, which this author 
now calletli representing, but is also spiritually given in the table, 
as these words sound to me. But whether this author will say 
very Christ himself is given spiritually in the meat, or by the meat, 
or with the meat, what Scripture hath he to prove that he saith, 
if the words of Christ be only a figurative speech, and the bread 
only signify Christ's body ? For if the words of the institution be 13 
but in figure, man cannot add of his device any other substance or 
effect than the words of Christ purport; and so this Supper, after 
this author*s teaching in other places of his book, where he would 
have it but a signification, shall be a bare memory of Christ's 
death, and signify only such communication of Christ as we have 
otherwise by faith in that benefit of his passion, without any spe- 
cial communication of the substance of his flesh in this sacra- 
ment, being the same only a figure, if it were true that this author 
would persuade in the conclusion of this book -, although by the 
way he saith otherwise, for fear percase and trembling that be 
conceiveth even of an Epistle, which himself saith is feigned. 

It is no marvel though this Epistle fdgned by the .papists 
many years passed^ do vary from the papists in these latter 
days. For the papistical Church at the beginning was not i 
so corrupt as it was after, but from time to time increased in 
errors and corruption more and more, and still doth, accord- 
a TSm. iii. ing to St. PauPs saying, Evil men and deceivers wax ever 
worse^ both leading other into error ^ and erring themselves. 
For at the first beginning they had no private masses, no par- 
dons in purgatory, no reservation of the bread : they knew 
no masses of Scala ccdi, no Lady Psalters, no transub- 


stantiation : but of later days all these and an infinite num- BOOK 
ber of errors besides, were invented and devised without any 

authority of God^s word. As yourself have newly invented 
a great sort of new devices, contrary to the papists before 
your time ; as, that Christ is in the sacrament carnally and 
naturally ; that the demonstration was made upon the bread 
when Christ said, This is my body ; that the word ^* satis- 
^* factory^ signifieth no more but the priest to do his duty ; 
with many other things, which here for shortness of time I 
will omit at this present, purposing to speak of them more 
hereafter. And the Epistles of Clement were feigned before 
the papists had run so far in errors as they be now. For 
yet at that time was not invented, as I said, the error of 
transubstantiation, nor the reservation of the sacrament, nor 
the priests did not communicate alone without the people. 
But that the said Epistle of Clement was feigned, be many ciement*i 
most certun arguments^. For there be five Epistles of Cle- ^fi^^ 
ment so knit tc^ther, and referring one to another, that if 
CMne be feigned, all must needs be feigned. Now neither 
Eusebius in Ecdesiastica Historia^ nor St. Hierome, nor 
Gennadius, nor any other old writer, maketh any mention of 
those Epistles ; which authors, in rehearsing what works Cle- 
ment wrote, not leaving out so much as one Epistle of his, 
would surely have made some mention of the five Epistles 
whidi the papists long before our time feigpfied in his name, 
if there had been any such in their time. 

Moreover those Epistles make mention, that Clement, at 
James^ request, wrote unto him the manner of Peter^s death; 
but how could that be, seeing that James was dead seven 
years before Peter ? for James died the seventh year, and 
Peter the fourteenth year of Nero the emperor. 

Thirdly, it is contained in the same Epistles, that Peter 

^ [The reuder inny see an attempt to confute '' Canterbury's objec- 
** tioDS against St. Clement's Epistles," in Martyn's Tract On the Mar- 
riage of Priests, London, 1554, Sii^n. F. ii. But Martyn's defence of 
tbese Epistles has not succeeded m averting sentence of condemna- 
tioD. ** be Clementis lAtur^ia et Epittolis Decretalibus,^ says Cove, 
** utpote ab omnibus jure rejectis et damnatis, nihil nos agere, semel 
** jam monuisoe suilictet." Cave, Hitt, UterJ] 


BOOK made Clement his successor; which could not be true, fonis- 
^^^' much as next to Peter succeeded Linus, as all the histories 

Fourthly, the author of those Epistles saith, that he made 
the book, called Itinerarium ClemenHs^ which was but feign- 
ed in Clement^s name, as it is declared Dist. 15. ^' Sancta.^ 
And then it followeth likewise of the other Epistles. 

Fifthly, the author of those Epistles taketh upon him to 
instruct St. James in the sacraments, and in all manner and 
fashion how he should use himself in his vocation ; as who 
should say, that James^ who learned of Christ himself, 
knew not how to use himself in the necessary points of 
Christ^s religion, except Clement must teach him. 

Sixthly, there be few things in those Epistles that either be 
observed at this day, or were at any time observed sithence 
Christ^s religion first began. 

Seventhly, a great number of Scriptures in those Epistles 
be so far wrested from the true sense thereof, that they have 
an evil opinion of Clement that think that be would do 
such injury to 6od''s word. 

Eighthly, those Epistles spake of palls, and archdeacons, 
and other inferior orders, which is not like that those things 
began so soon, but, as the histories tell, were invented many 
years after Peter^s time. 

And finally, in one of those Epistles is contained a most 

pernicious heresy, that all things ought to be common, and 

wives also, which could not be the doctrine of Clement, 

being the most pestilent error of the Nicholaites, whom the 

Apoc. ii. Holy Ghost doth hate, as he testifieth in the Apocalypse. 

Now all these things considered, who, having either wit or 
good opinion of the Apostles and their disciples, can think 
that they should write any such Epistles ? 
aement But the Epistle of St. Clement, say you, speaketh not of a 
bread. bread ; what was it then I pray you that he meant, when he 
spake of the broken pieces in the Lord^s supper ? If it were 
not bread, it must be some other thing which Christ did eat 
at that supper. Peradventure you will say, (as some stick 
not to say now-a-days,) that Christ had some other meat at 


that supper than bread; as if he fared daintily, which we BOOK 
never read. You might imagine he had capon, partridge, 
or pheasant ; or if he fared hardly, at the least you would 
say, he had cheese to eat with his bread, because you will de- 
fend that he did not eat dry bread alone. Such vain phan- 
tasies men may have, that will speak without God^s word, 
which roaketh mention in that holy supper of nothing but of 
bread and wine. But let it be that Christ had as many dishes 
as you can devise, yet I trust you will not say that he called 
all those his body, but only the bread. And so St. Clement, 
speaking of the broken pieces of the Lord'^s body, of the 
residue and fragments of the Lord'^s body, of the portion 
and leaving of the Lord^s body, must needs speak all this of 
bread. And thus is it manifest false that you say, that the 
Epistle of Clement speaketh nothing of bread. 

And then forasmuch as he callcth the leavings of the 
same the broken pieces of the Lord^s body, and the frag- 
ments and portion thereof he calleth the fragments and por- 
tion of the Lord^s body ; he showeth that the bread remain- 
eth, and that the calling thereof the Lord'^s body is a figu- 
rative speech. The body of Christ hath no fragments nor 
broken pieces, and therefore the calling here is so material, Calling of 
that it proveth fully the matter, that to call bread Christ's**"^.'* 
i^body is a figurative speech. And although to avoid the 
matter you devise subtle cavillations, saying that calling is 
not material, because it signifieth that was ; yet they that 
have understanding, may soon discern what a vain shift this 
is, imagined only to blind the ignorant reader'^s eyes. But 
if that which is bread before the consecration, be after no 
bread ; and if it be against the Christian faith to think that it 
is still bread, what occasion of error should this be, to call it 
still bread after consecration ? Is not this a great occasion of 
error to call it bread still, if it be not bread still ? 

And yet in this place of Clement the calling can in no 
wise signify that was before consecration, but must needs 
signify that is after consecration. For this place speaketh 
of fragments, broken pieces, and leavings, which can have no 
true understanding before consecration, at what time there 


BOOK be yet no broken pieces, fragments, nor leavings, but be ail 
!_done after consecration. 

But you wrangle so much in this matter to avoid absur- 
dities, that you snarl yourself into so many and heinous ab- 
surdities as you shall never be able to wind yourself out. 
For you say that Chrisf s body (which in all the hosts, and 4 
in all the parts of the hosts is but one, not broken, nor dis- 
tributed) is called the leaving pieces of the body, portion of 
the body, residue of the body, and yet every piece is Chrisf s 
whole body, which things, to be spoken of ChrisCs body. 
Christian ears abhor for to hear. And if you will say that your 
book is false, that you meant all these leaving pieces, por- 
tion, and residue, to be understand of the hosts and not of 
Christ^s body, then you confess the hosts which be broken 
to be called by name the leavings or pieces of Christ^s body, 
the portion of his body, the residue of his body, by a figu- 
rative speech, which is as nmch as I speak in my first note. 
And so appeareth how vainly you have travailed for the 
confutation of my first note. 
Of reser- Now as touching the second note^ Clement declareth ex- 5 
pressly that nothing might be reserved. For where he 
saith, that if any thing remain, it must not be kept until the 
morning, but be spent and consumed of the clerks, how 
could he declare more plainly that nothing might be re- 
served, than by those words ? 

And as for Justine, he speaketh not one word of ack per- 
sons, as you report of him. 

And concerning Cyrill^^, Ad Calosyrium^ would to Grod 
that work of Cyrill might come abroad, for I doubt not but 
it would clearly discuss this matter; but I fear that some 
papists will suppress it, that it shall never come to light. 6 
And where you say, that Lynnehode found fault with this 
his own country of England, and blamed this realm, because 

^ [This treatise against the Anthropomorphites first " came abroad" 
iD 1605, with a Latin version by Bonavent. Vulcanius. Walch. Biblioth. 
Patrist. p. 446. Fabricius, Bihlioth. Graca, Harles. lib. v. c. 29. vol. viii. 
p. 570. Gardyner has cited it correctly. See Authorities in the Appen- 



they hanged up the sacrament^ contrary to the use of other boo K 
countries : you have well excused me, that I am not the first ^"' 
finder of this fault, but many years ago that fault was found, 
and that it was not the use of other countries to hang it up. 
And yet the use of other countries was fond enough, even as 
they had charge and commandment from Innocentius the 
Third and Honorius the Third. 

7 And as for the receiving of the sacrament with fear and Receiving 
trembling, ought not they that be baptized in their old age, and trem- 
or in years of discretion, come to the water of baptism with ^^'°^' 
fear and trembling, as well as to the Lord''s Supper ? Think 

you that Symon Magus was not in as great damnation for 
the unworthy receiving of baptism, as Judas was for the 
unworthy receiving of the Lord^s Supper? And yet you 
will not say, that Christ is really and corporally in the water, 
but that the washing in the wat^r is an outward dgnification 
and figure, declaring what God worketh inwardly in them 
that truly be baptized. And likewise speaketh this Epistle 
of the holy communion. For every good Christian man 
ought to come to Christ^s sacraments with great fear, humi- 
lity, £sdth, love, and charity, 

8 And St. Augustine saith, that the Gospel is to be receiv- 
ed or heard with no less fear and reverence than the body of 
Christ, whose words be these. ^^ Interrogo vos, fratres et 
<< sorores, dicite mihi. Quid vobis plus esse videtur, verbum 
^ Dei an corpus Christi ? Si vere vultis respondere, hoc uti- 
^* que dicere debetis, quod non sat minus verbum Dei quam 
^ corpus Christi. £t ideo quanta solidtudine observamus, 
<< quando nobis corpus Christi ministratur, ut nihil ex ipso 
^* de nostris manibus in terram cadat, tanta solicitudine ob- 
*' servemus, ne verbum Dei quod noUs erogatur, dum ali« 
^' quid aut cogitamus aut loquimur, de corde nostro pereat, 
^ quia non minus reus erit qui verbum Dei negligenter 
^' audierit, quam ille qui corpus Christi in terram cadere sua 
'^ negligentia permiseritP.^ '' I ask this question of you, bre- 
** thren and sistem,^ saith St. Augustine, ^^ answer me, whe- 
** ther you think greater, the word of God, or the body of 

P Aaguflt. 50. KomiUarumy hom. 86. 

VOL. III. a 


BOOK ** Christ? If you will answer the truths verily you ought to 
*^^' " say thus, that the word of God is no less than the body of 
<' Christ. And therefore with what carefulness we take heed, 
'^ when the body of Christ is ministered unto us, that no part 
<* thereof fall out of our hands on the earth, with as great 
<^ carefulness let us take heed, that the word of God which 
'^ is ministered unto us, when we think or speak of vain mat- 
'^ ters, perish not out of our hearts. For he that heareth 
^* the word of God negligently, shall be guilty of no less 
*^ fault, than he that suffereth the body of Christ to fall upon 
'^ the ground through his negligence.'" This is the mind of 
St. Augustine. And as much we have in Scripture for the 
reverent hearing and reading of God his holy word, or the 
neglecting thereof, as we have for the sacraments. 
Tlie causes But it seemeth by your pen and utterance of this matter, 
trembliBg. that you understand not th^ ground and cause whereupon 
should arise the great fear and trembling in their hearts, 
that come to receive the sacraments, for you show another 
consideration thereof than the Scripture doth. For you 
seem to drive all the cause of fear to the dignity of the body 
of Christ, there corporally present and received; but the 
Scripture declareth the fear to rise of the indignity and un- 
worthiness of the receivers. He that eateth and drinketh 
unworthily^ threatneth God^s word, eoiteth and drinketh his 
own damnation. 
Matth.nii. And Centurio, considering his own un worthiness, was 
abashed to receive Christ into his house, saying, Lordylam 
not xvorihy that thou shouldest come under the covering of 
my house. And the same thing made Peter afraid to be 
Luke r. near unto Christ, and to say, Go from me^ O Lordyjbr I am 
a sinner. And all Christian men ought not to fear and 
tremble only when they receive the sacraments, but when- 
soever they hear God^s word, and threatniugs pronounced 
against sinners. 
The people Now as concerning the third note, thou shalt see plainly, 9 
l^Hth the ff^^ reader, that there is nothing here answered directly, 
priests. but mere cavillations sought, and shift to avoid. For if all 
the old prayers and ceremonies sound as the people did 


communicate with the priest, (as you say they do, and BOOK 
so they do in deed, and that as well in the communion of 
drinking as eating) then either the people did communicate 
with them in deed, and )*eceived the sacrament under both 
the kinds, or else the prayers had been false, and the cere- 
monies frustrate and in vain. And is it like, that the priests 
in that time would have used unto God such untrue prayers 
as should declare that the people did communicate with 
them, if indeed none did communicate with them ? as it 
should have been by your imagined chances and cases. 

But it appeareth by the words of the Epistle, that the 
whole multitude of the people that was present did commu- 
nicate at those days, so that the priest could not communi- 
cate alone, except he would communicate when no man was 
in the church. But by the answer of this sophister here in 
lo this place, thou mayest see an experience, good reader, whe- 
ther he is as ready to see those things that make against him, 
as he is painful and studious to draw as it were by force all 
things to his purpose, to make them at the least to seem to 
make for him, although they be never so much against him. 
As appeareth by all diese his suppositions, that all the peo- 
ple which were prepared for, should in those days withdraw 
themselves from the communion, and not one of them come 
unto it ; that the clerks should receive all that was provided 
for the people; that one clerk should receive that which 
many clerks ought to have received ; and so in conclusion 
by only his feigned suppositions he would persuade that the 
priest should receive all alone. 

By such pretty cases, of the people disappointing the 
priests, and of lack of store of clerks^ you might dally and 
find cavillations with all godly ordinances. For whereas The pas- 
God ordained the paschal lamb to be eaten up clean in every [^*^*™^' 
house, and where there were not enough in one house to eat 
up the lamb, they should call of their neighbours so many 
as should suffice to eat up the whole lamb, so that nothing 
should remain : here you might bring in your ^* upon a 
^^ chance^' that they that lacked company to eat up a whole 
lamb, dwelt alone far from other houses, and could not come 



BOOK together, or could Dot get any such lamb as was appointed 
^'^- for the feast, or if their neighbours lacked company also : 
and what if they had no spit to roast the lamb? and 
whereas it was commanded, that they should be shoed, 
what if perchance they had no shoes P and if perchance a 
man^s wife were not at home, and all his servants fallen sick 
of the sweat or plague, and no man durst come to his house, 
then must he turn the spit himself, and eat the lamb all 
alone P such chances you purposely devise, to establish your 
private mass, that the priest may eat all alone. But by 
such a like reason as you make here, a man might prove 
that the priest should preach or say matins to himself 
alone, in case (as you say) that the people which should 
come would disappcHUt him. For what if the people disap* 
point the priest, say you, and come not to the communion P 
What if the people disappoint the priest, say I, and come 
not to matins nor sermon P shall he therefore say matins and 
preach, when no man is present but himself alone P But 
your imagined case hath such an absurdity in it, as is not 
tolerable to be thought to have been in Christian people in 
that time when Clement^s Epistles were written, that when 
all the people should receive the communion with the priest, 
yet not one would come, but all would disappoint him. And 
yet in that case I doubt not but the priest would have ab- 
stained from ministration unto more opportunity and more 
access of Christian people, as he would have done likewise 
in saying of matins and preaching. Wherefore in your 
case I might well answer you, as St Hierome answered the 
argument made in the name of the heretic Jovinian^, which 
might be brought against the commendation of virginity : 
What if all men would live virgins, and no man marry, 
how should then the world be maintained ? What if heaven 
fall P said St. Hierome. What if no roan will come to the 
Church P is your argument ; for all that came in those days 
received the communion. What if heaven fall P say I : for I 
have not so evil opinion of the holy Church in those days, to 

^ Hieron. Advemu Javinianumf lib. 1. 


think that any such thing could chance among them^ that BOOK 
no one would come, when all ought to have come. ^^^' 

II Now when you come to your issue, you make your case Mine issue, 
too strait for me to join an issue with you, binding me to ^'^^'^ 
the bare and only words of Clement, and refusing utterly 
his mind : but take the words and the mind together, and I 
dare adventure an issue to pass by any indifferent readers, 
that I have proved all my three notes. 

13 And where you say, that upon occasion of this Epistle, I 
speak more reverently of the sacrament than I do in other 
places; if you were not given altogether to calumniate and 
deprave my words, you should perceive in all my book 
through, even from the beginning to the end thereof, a con- 
stant and perpetual reverence given unto the sacraments of 
Christ, such as of duty all Christian men ought to give. 

«3 Nevertheless you interpret this word " wherein'* far from 
my meaning. For I mean not that Christ is spiritually 
either in the table, or in the bread and wine that be set 
upon the table, but I mean that he is present in the mi- 
nistration and receiving of that holy Supper, according to 
bis own institution and ordinance. like as in baptism 
Christ and the Holy Ghost be not in the water, or font, but 
be given in the ministration, or to them that be duly bap- 
tized in the water. 

And although the sacramental tokens be only signifi-Baresigiii. 
cations and figures, yet doth Almighty God effectually ^^^^* 
work in them that duly receive his sacraments, those divine 
and celestial operations, which he hath promised, and by the 
sacraments be signified. Por else they were vain and un- 
fruitful sacraments, as well to the godly as to the ungodly. 
And therefore I never said of the whole Supper, that it is 
but a signification or a bare memory of Christ's death, but 
I teach that it is a spiritual refreshing, wherein our souls be 
fed and nourished with Christ's very flesh and blood to eter- 
nal life. And therefore bring you forth some place in my 
book, where I say, that the Lord's Supper is but a bare 
signification without any effect or operation of God in the 
same, or else eat your words again, and knowledge that you 



BOOK UDtnily report me. But hear what followeth further in my 
'"' book. 

[See vol. ii. p. 408. " Here I pass over^ " ought to 

" be.^] 


Ignatius. This author saith he pasaeth over Ignatius and Ireneus; and 
Ireiuenf. ^||j> Because they make nothing, he saith^ for the papists' pur- i 
pose. With the word ** papist*' the author pbyeth at his pleasure. 
But it shall be evident that Irene doth plainly confound this au- 
thors purpose in the denial of the true presence of Christ's very 
flesh in the sacrament : who although he use not the words real 
and substantial, yet he doth efiectually comprehend in his speech 
of the sacrament the virtue and strength of those words. And for 
the truth of the sacrament is Ireneus specially alleged ; insomuch s 
PhiKp Me- as Melanchton, when he writeth to (Ecolampadius, that he will 
^^ allege none but such as speak plainly, he allegeth Ireneus for 

one, as appeareth by his said Epistle to (Ecolampadius. And 
(Ecolampadi^ himself is not troubled so much with answering 
any other to shape any manner of evasion, as to answer Ireneus, 3 
in whom he notably stumbleth. And Peter Martyr in his work 
granteth Irene to be specially alleged : to whom^ when he goeth 
about to answer^ a man may evidently see how he masketh him- 
self. And this author bringeth in Clement's Epistle, of which no 
great count is made, although it be not contemned ; and pasaeth 
over Ireneus, that speaketh evidently in the matter, and was as old 
as Clement, or not much younger. And because Ignatius was of 
that age, and is alleged by Theodorete to have written in his Ejn- 
stle M Smymentes^ whereof may appear his faith of the mysteiy 
of the sacrament, it shall serve to good purpose to write in the 4 
words of the same Ignatius here, upon the credit of the said Theo- 
dorete ^ whom this author so much commendeth. The words of 
Ignatius be these: ** Eucharistias et oblationes non admittunt, 
*' quod non con6teantur Eucharistiam esse camem Servatoris nostri 
*< Jesu Christi, qu8s pro peccatis nostris passa est, quam Pater sua 
benigoitate suscitavit.*' Which words be thus much in English : 
They do not admit Eucharisticu and oblations because they do 
" not confess Eucharistiam to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesu 
" Christ : which flesh suffered for our sins, which flesh the Father 
" by his benignity hath stirred up." These be Ignatius* words, 

' Theodorete, Dialogo, 3. 



which I have not thoroughly Englished, because the word £tf-^ BOOK 
charisUa cannot be well Englished, being a word of mystery, " ' 
and signifying, as Ireneus openeth, both the parts of the sacra- 
ment, heavenly and earthly, visible and invisible. But in that 
Ignatius openeth his faith thus, as he taketh Eucharistia to be 
the flesh of our Saviour Christ that suffered for us, he declareth the 
sense of Christ's words. This is my hody^ not to be figurative only, 
but to express the. truth of the very flesh there given ; and there- 
fore, Ignatius saith, Eucharistia is the flesh of our Saviour Christ, 
the same that suffered and the same that rose again. Which 
words of Ignatius so pithily open the matter, as they declare there- 
with the faith also of Theodorete that doth allege him : so as if 
this author would make so absolute a work, as to peruse all the 

5 fathers* sayings, he should not thus leap over Ignatius, nor Irene 
neither, as I have before declared. But this is a colour of rheto* 
ric called "rejection" of that is hard to answer, and is here a 
pretty shift or sleight, whereby thou, reader, mayest consider Sleight, 
how this matter is handled. ['S^^O 


1 It shall not need to make any further answer to you here 
aa concerning Ireneus^ but only to note one thing, that if 
any place of Ireneus had served for your purpose^ you 
would not have failed here to allege it. But because you 
have nothing that maketh for you in deed^ therefore you al- 
1^6 nothing in especial, (least in the answer it should evi- 
dently appear to be nothing,) and so slide you from the mat- 
ter, as though all men should believe you, because you say 
it is so. 

s And as for the place of Irene alleged by Melancthon in Irene. 
an Epistle, QBcolampadius, without any such troubling of 
himself as you imagine, maketh a plain and easy answer 
thereto, although Melanchton wrote not his said Epistle 
to (Ecolampadius, (as you n^ligently looking upon their 
works be deceived,) but to Fridericus Myoonius. And the 
words of Irene alleged by Melancthon mean in effect no 
more but to prove, that our bodies shall rise again, and be 
joined unto our souls, and reign with them in the eternal 
life to come. For he wrote against Valentine, Martion, and 
other heretics^ which denied die resurrectiim of our bodies; 

0, 4 


BOOK from whom it seemetfa you do not much didsent^ when you 
*^^' say that our bodies shall rise spiritual, if you mean that 
they shall rise without the form and fashion of men^s bodies, 
without distinction and proportion of members. For those 
shall be marvellous bodies, that shall have no shape nor 
fashion of bodies, as you say Chrisfs body is in the sacra- 
ment, to whose body ours shall be like after the resurrection. 
Why bread But to return to answer Irene clearly and at large, his 
ChrUt*8 meaning was this, that as the water in baptism is called 
body, and aotui reffeneratiSy " the water that doth regenerate,^ and yet it 

wine hia,-*,*^ 'jii.*.! .* 

blood. doth not regenerate m deed, but is the sacrament of r^;ene- 
ration wrought by the Holy Ghost, and called so to make it 
to be esteemed above other common waters : so Christ con- 
fessed the creatures of bread and wine joined unto his words 
in his holy Supper, and there truly ministered, to be his 
body and blood ; meaning thereby, that they ought not to 
be taken as common bread, or as baker^s bread, and wine 

Smytli. drunken in the tavern, (as Smyth untruly jesteth of me 
throughout his book,) but that they ought to be taken for 
bread and wine, wherein we give thanks to God, and there- 
fore be called EucharisHa corporis et sanguinis Domini^ 
^' the thanking of Christ'^s body and blood,^ as Irene termeth 
them ; or Mysteria corporis et sanguinis Domini^ ^' the my s- 
^^ teries of his flesh and blood,^ as Dionysius calleth them ; or 
Sacramenta corporis et sanguinis Dominiy the '^sacraments 
'^ of Christ^s flesh and blood,^ asd ivers other authors use to 
call them. And when Christ called bread and wine his 
body and blood, why do the old authors change in many 
places that speech of Christ, and call them EucharisHa^ 
mysteria^ et sacramenta corporis et sanguinis Domini? 
*^ the thanksgiving, the mysteries, and the sacraments of his 
^' flesh and blood,^^ but because they would clearly expound 
the meaning of Christ'^s speech, that when he called the 
bread and wine his flesh and blood, he meant to ordain 
them to be the sacraments of his flesh and blood ? Accord- 
ing to such a speech as Saint Augustine expresseth, how 
the sacraments of Christ^s flesh and blood be called his flesh 
and blood, and yet in deed they be not his flesh and blood, 


but the sacraments thereof, sigiiifyuig unto the godly re- BOOK 
oeiverB, that, as they corporally feed of bread and wine. ^^^' 
(which comfort their hearts, and continue this oorrupdble 
fife for a season,) so spritually they feed of Christ'^s very 
flesh, and drink his very blood. And we be in such sort 
united unto him, that his flesh is made our flesh, his holy 
Spirit uniting him and us so together, that we be flesh of Epbes. ▼. 
his flesh, and bone of his bones, and make all one mystical f^^ ^' 
body, whereof he is the head, and we the members. And Colon. 1. 
as feeding, nourishing, and life oometh from the head, and 
runneth into all parts of the body, so doth eternal nourish* 
ment and life come from Christ unto us completely and 
fully, as wdU into our bodies as souls. And therefore ifiCor. z?. 
Christ our head be risen again, then shall we that be the 
members of his body surdy rise also, forasmudi as the 
members cannot be separated from the head ; but seeing that 
as he is our head and eternal food, we must needs by him 
five with him for ev^ . This is the aigument of Irene 
agmnst those heretics which denied the resurrection of our 
bodies. And these things the sacraments of bread and wine 
declare unto us, but neither the carnal presence nor the car- 
nal eating of Christ^s flesh maketh the things so to be, nor 
Irene meant no such thing ; for then should all manner of 
persons that receive the sacraments, have everlasting life, 
and none but they. 

3 Thus have I answered to Irene plainly and riiordy, and 
(EccJampadius needed not to trouble himself greatly with 
answering this matter. For by the corporal eating and 
drinking of Chrises flesh and blood, Irene could never 
have proved the resurrection of our bodies to eternal life. 

And Peter Martjrr maketh the matter so plain \ that he Peter Mar- 
oonoiudech Ireneus^ words to make directly against the doo-^' 
trine of the papists. 

4 The answer also is easily made to the piaoe which you 
allege out of Ignatius, where he calleth Euchaririia thelgnatiui. 
flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ. For he meaneth no more 

but that it is the sacrament of his flesh, or the mystery of 
^ [Peter Martjrr, Trw^tatio de Eucharkt. p. 94. Tigar. 1557.] 


BOOK his flesh, or, as Irene said, Eucharistia of his flesh, as even 
^^^' now I declared in mine answer to Irene. And your long 
process here may have a short answer, gathered of your own 
words. This word Eucharwtiay say you^ cannot be well 
Englished, but the body of Christ is good and plain Eng- 
lish ; and then if Eucharistia be such a thing as cannot be 
well Englished, it cannot be called the body of Christ, but 
by a figurative speech. And how can you then conclude of 
Ignatius^ words, that This is my body^ is no figurative 
speech ? It seemeth rather that the clean contrary may be 
concluded. For if these two speeches be like and of one sense, 
<< Eucharistia is Christ's body,"* and '' This is my bodgfj'^ 
and the first be a declaration of the second, is this a good ar- 
gument? the first is a figure, ergo^ the second is none. Is 
it not rather to be gathered upon the other side thus ? the 
first is a declaration of the second, and yet the first is a 
figure ; ergo, the second is also a figure : and that rather 
than the first, because the declaration should be a more 
plain speech than that which is declared by it. 

And as for your colour of rhetoric whidi you call ^^ rejec- 5 
** tion,^ it is so familiar with yourself, that you use it com- 
monly in your book, when I allege any author or speak any 
thing that you cannot answer unto. 

And yet one thing is necessary to admonish the reader^ 
that Ignatius in thb Epistle entreateth not of the manner of 
the presence of Christ in the sacrament, but of the manner 
of his very body, as he was bom of his mother, crucified, 
and rose again, appeared unto his Apostles, and ascended 
into heaven. Which things divers heretics said were not 
done verily in deed, but apparently to men's sights, and 
that indeed he had no such carnal and corporal body as he 
appeared to have. And against such errors speaketh that 
Epistle, and not of the real and corporal presence of Christ 
in the sacrament, although Eucharistia or the sacrament 
be ordained for a remembrance of that very body, and so 
hath the name of it, as sacraments have the names of the 
things which they signify. But by this so manifest writhing 
of the mind of Ignadus from the true sense and purpose 


that was meant, to another sense and purpose that was not BOOK 
meant, may appear the truth of the papists, who wrest and_J^ 

misconstrue all old ancient writers and holy doctors to their 
wicked and ungodly purposes. Next in my book foUowetb 
mine answer to Dionysius. 

[See vol. ii. p. 402—408. " Dionyrius also*" '^ priest 

" alone.^ 


1 As touching Dionysius, a wise reader may, without any note of DioDynui. 
mine, see how this author is troubled in him, and calleth for aid 

the help of him that made the Greek commentaries upon Diony- 

2 sius, and pleadeth therewith the form of the words really, corpo- 

3 rally, sensibly, and naturally; whereof two, that is to say, really 
and sensibly, the old authors in syllables used not, for so much as 
I hare read, but corporally and naturally they used, speaking of 
this sacrament. This Dionyse spake of thb mystery after the 

4 dignity of it, not contending with any other for the truth of it, 
as we do now, but extolling it as a marvellous high mystery, which, 
if the bread be never the holier, and were only a signification, as 
this author teacheth, were no high mystery at all. As for the 
things of the sacrament to be in heaven, the Church teacheth so, 
and yet the same things be in deed present in the sacrament also j 
which is a mystery so deep and dark from man*s natural capa- 
city, as is only to be believed supematurally, without asking of 
the question "how/* whereof St. Chrysostom maketh an exclama- 
tion in this wise. 

*' O great benevolence of God towards us ! he that sitteth above 
** with the Father, at the same hour is holden here with the 
** hands of all men, and giveth himself to them that will dasp 

5 '* and embrace him K" Thus saith Chrysostome, confessing to 
be above and here the same things at once, not only in men*s 
breasts, but hands also, to declare the inward work of God, in the 

6aubstanoe of the visible sacrament, whereby Christ b present in 

^ Chrysostomas, Dt Saeerdot, lib. iii. 

[The clause in Chrysostom which immediately follows this extract, 
overturns Gardyner's ailment ; and is a€Cording;lY cited on the other 
side by Cranmer in his Disputation at Oxford, it is this t wtuS^t ^ 
rmr* wdwrtt hk rSt i^mXftSt rnt r/rruwf. See DUputatum at Oxford with 
Chedieyp vol. iv. and Autkoriiiei in the Appendix.] 


BOOK the midst of our senses, and so may be called sensibly present, 
^^^' although man's senses cannot comprehend and feel» or taste of him 
in their proper nature. But as for this Dionyse doth without ar- 
gument declare his faith in the adoration he maketh of thb sacra- 
ment, which is openly testified in his works, so as we need not 
doubt what his fiuth was. As for this author's notes be descant 
voluntary, without the tenor part, being belike ashamed to allege 
the text itself, lest his three notes might seem feigned without 
ground, as before in St. Clement's Epistle, and therefore I will not 
trouble the reader with them. 


I ask no more of the reader, but to read my book, and i 
then to judge how much I am troubled with this authcHr. 
And why may not I dte the Greek commentaries for testi- 
mony of the truth ? Is this to be termed a calling for aid ? 
Why is not then the allegation of all authors a calling for 
aid ? Is not your doing rather a calling for aid, when you 
be (sin to fly for succour to Martin Luther, Bucer, Me- 
lancthon, Epinus, Jonas^ Peter Martjrr, and such other, 
whom all the world knoweth you never favoured^ but ever 
abhorred thdr names ? May not this be termed a caUing 
for aid, when you be driven to such a strait and need, that 
you be glad to cry to such men for help, whom ever you 
have hindered and defamed as mudi as lay in you to do ? 

And as for pleading of those words, really, corporaUy,a 
sensibly, and naturally, they be your own terms, and the 
terms wher^ resteth the whole contenUon between you 
and me : and should you be offended because I speak of 
those terms ? It appeareth now that you be loth to hear of 
those words, and would very gladly have them put in si- 
lence, and so should the variance between you and me be 
clearly ended. For if you will confess, that the body of 
Christ is not in the sacrament really, corporally, sensibly, 
and naturally, then you and I shall shake hands, and be 
both earnest friends to the truth. 
ReaHy and And yet one thing you do here confess, (which is worthy 3 
noUomid^ to be noted and had in memory,) that you read not in any 
ID any old old autlior that the body of Christ is really and sensibly in 


the sacrament. And hereunto I add, that none of them say, BOOK 
that he is in the bread and wine corporally nor naturally. ^^^' 
No, never no papist said that Christ^s body is in the sacra- 
ment naturally nor carnally, but you alone, (who be the 
first author of this gross error, which Smith himself con* Smith. 
demneth and denieth that ever any Christian man so taught,) 
although some say that it is there really, some substantially, 
and some sensibly* 

4 Now as concerning the high mystery which St Denys 
speaketh of, he dedareth the same to be in the marvellous 
and secret working of God in his reascmable creatures, (be- 
ing made after his image, and being his lively temples, and 
Christ'^s mystical body,) and not in the unreasonable and 
unsensible and unhvely creatures of bread and wine, where- 
in you say the deep and dark mystery standeth. But not- 
withstanding any holiness or godliness wrought in the re- Holiness in 
oeivers of them, yet they be not the more holy or godly in menSr*' 
themselves, but be only tokens, significations, and sacra- 
ments of that holiness, which Almighty God by his omni- 
potent power worketh in us. And for their holy significa- 
tions they have the name of holiness, as the water in baptism 

is caUed aqua sanctificans, unda regenerans, ^' haHowing"" 
or *' regenerating water,^ because it is the sacrament of re- 
generation and sanctification. 

5 Now as concerning Chrysostome's saying, that Christ is Christ in 
in our hands, Chrysostome saith, as I have rehearsed in my 
book, not only that he is in our bands, but also that we see 

him with our eyes, touch him, feel him^ and grope him, 
fix our teeth in his flesh, taste it, break it, eat it, and digest 
it, make red our tongues, and die them with his blood, &c. 
which things cannot be understand of the body and blood 
of Christ, but by a figurative speech, as I have more at 
large declared in my fourth book, the eighth diapter. And 
therefore St. Augustine, De Verbis Domini Semume xxxiii. 
suth clean contrary to Chrysostome, that we touch not 
Christ with our hands : ^^ Non tang^mus Dominum,^ saith 
he. This speech therefore of Chrysostome dedareth not the 
inward work of God in the substance of the visible sacra- 


BOOK meaty but ngnifieth what Grod worketh inwardly in true be- 
^^^* lievers. 

And whereas you say that my notes be descant voluntary 
without the tenor part, I have named both the book and 
chapter where St. Dionyse telleth how the priest when he 6 
oometh to the receiving of the sacraments, he divideth the 
bread in pieces, and distributeth the same to all that be 
present; which one sentence containeth sufficiently all my 
three notes. So that if you be disposed to call my notes 
descant, there you may find the plain song or tenor part of 
them. And it is no marvel that you cannot judge well of 
my descant, when you see not or will not see the plain song^ 
whereupon the descant was made. 
Now followeth Tertullian, of whom I write thus. 

[See vol. ii. p. 40S— 404. *< Furthermore they do al- 
« lege" *^ of my body."] 


TertuUUn. Of Tertullian I have spoken before, and so hath this author 
also, and fbi^otteo here one notable thing in Tertullian ; where 
Tertullian saith, that Christ made the bread his body, (not only 
called it so,) as may appear by TertuUian's words reported by i 
this author before. This note that I make now of Tertullian, 
maketh against this author's purpose, but yet it maketh with the a 
truth, which this author should not impugn. The second 
note gathered of Tertullian by this author is not true; for 3 
Christ called it his body, and made it his body, as Tertullian 
saith. And the third note of this author is in controversy of 4 
reading, and must be so understanded, as may agree with the rest 
of Tertullian's sayings, which, after my reading, doth evidently 5 
prove, and at the least doth not improve the catholic doctrine 
of Christ*s Church universally received, although it improveth 
that which this author calleth here our catholic doctrine, most 
impudently and untruly reporting the same. 


I desire no more but that the reader will look upon the 
place of Tertullian before mentioned, and see what you 


speak there, and what is mine answer thereto, and so confer BOOK 

• III 

them together and judge. ' 

I And that the reader will note also, that here covertly 
you have granted my first note^ that Christ called bread 
his body ; but so slyly, that the reader should not by your 
siinll perceive it. And where you deny my second note 
upon Tertullian, that Christ called it his body, because it 
representeth his body ; the words of Tertullian be these, 
that ** Christ reproveth not bread, wherein he representeth 

3 ** his own body.^ As for my third note^ yet once again, 
reader, I beseech thee turn back and look upon the place, 
how this lawyer hath expounded Tertullian, if thou canst 
with patience abide to hear of so foolish a gloss. 

4 And where he saith^ that this author Tertullian must 
be so understand, as may agree with the rest of his sayings, 
would to God you would so do, not only in Tertullian, but 
also in aU other authors, for then our controversy should 

5 be soon at a point And it is a most shameless impudency 
of you to affirm that the catholic Church universally teach- 
eth that Christ is really, sensibly, corporally, naturally, car- 
nally, and substantially present in the visible forms of 
bread and wine, seeing that you cannot prove any one of 
these your sayings, either by Scripture or by the consent of 
the catholic Church, but only by the papistical Church 
which now many years hath borne the whole swing. Now 
foUoweth Origen, to whom I answer thus. 

[See vol. ii. p. 404. " Moreover they allege^—" un- 
<* derstanding.^] 


Oaiobn*8 words be very plain, and meaning also, which speak orig«net. 
of manifestation and exhibition; which be two things to be 
verified three ways in our religion, that is to say, in the word, and 
regeneration^ and the sacrament of bread and wine^ as this author 
tenneth it; which Origeue speaketh not so, but thus : '^ the flesh of 
** the word of God ;** not meaning in every of these after one sort, 
t but after the trqth of Scripture in each of them. Christ in his word 
is manifested and exhibited unto us, and by faith, that is of 


BOOK hearing, dwelleth in us spiritually, for so we have his spirit. Of 
^^^* baptism St. Pftul saith. As many as he baptized, be clad m Christ. ' 
Now in the sacrament of bread and wine, by Origen*s nile^ Christ 
Origenhatiiehottld be manifested and exhibited unto us after the Scriptures ; 
'' ^e ad SQ as the sacrament of bread and wine should not only signify 
bat I take Christ, that is to say, preach him, but also exhibit him sensibly, 
^'LT* n^' as Origen's words be reported here to be. So as Christ's words 
geth ^his is my body, should be words not of figure and showing, but 3 

OrigeD. q{ exhibiting Christ's body unto us, and sensibly, as this author 
When i say allegeth him, which should signify to be received with our mouth, 
" ^^J^ M ^ Christ commanded when he said. Take eat, S[c, diversely from 
I mean the other two ways, in which by Christ's spirit we be made 4 
'"^J^T^J*!; participant of the benefit of his passion wrought in his man- 
speaketh. hood. But in this sacrament we be made participant of his 
[1580.] Godhead, by his humanity exhibit unto us for food, and so in 
this mystery we receiye him man and God ; and in the other, by 
mean o£ his Godhead, be participant of the effect of hu passion 
suffered in his manhood. 

In this sacrament Christ's manhood is rq)re8ented and truly 
present, whereunto the Godhead is most certainly united, whereby 
we receive a pledge of the regeneration of our flesh, to be in the 5 
general resurrection spiritual with our soul, as we have been in 
baptism made spiritual by regeneration of the soul, which in 
the full redemption of our bodies shall be made perfect And 
therefore this author may not compare baptism with the sacra- 
ment thoroughly ; in which baptism Christ's manhood is not really 6 
present, although the virtue and effect of his most precious blood 
be there ; but the truth of the mystery of this sacrament is to 
have Christ's body, his flesh and blood, exhibited, whereunto 
eating and drinking is by Christ in his supper appropriate. In 
which supper, Christ said, 7^ is my body, which Bucer noteth, 
and that Christ said not. This is my spirit. This b my virtue. 
Wherefore, after Origen's teaching, if Christ be not only mani- 
Senaibly. fested, but also exhibited sensibly in the sacrament, then is he in 7 
S^untl- ^^ sacrament indeed, that is to say, really ^ and then is he there 
ally. Cor- substantially, because the substance of the body is there ; and is 
Natandly. ^^^ corporally also, because the very body is there ; and natu- 
[1580.J rally, because the natural body is there ; nor understanding cor- 
porally and naturally in the manner of presence, nor sensibly 
neither; for then were the manner of presence within man's 


8 capacity, and that is false; and therefore the catholic teaching ia, BOOK 
that the manner of Christ's presence in the sacrament is spiritual ^^^' 
and supernatural, not corporal, not carnal, not natural, not 
sensible, not perceptible, but only spiritual, the " how" and man- 
ner whereof God knoweth, and we, assured by his word^ know 

only the truth to be so, that it is there indeed and therefore 
really, to be also received with our hands and mouths, and so 
sensibly there, the body that suffered, and therefore his natural 
body there, the body of very fleshy and therefore his carnal 
body, the body truly, and therefore his corporal body there. 
But as for the manner of presence^ that is only spiritual^ as I 
said before ; and here in the inculcation of these words, I am 
tedious to a learned reader^ but yet this author enforceth me 
thereunto^ who with these words, carnally^ corporally^ grossly, 
sensibly^ naturally, applying them to the manner of presence, 
doth craftily carry away the reader from the simplicity of 
bis faith, and by such absurdities as these words grossly un- 
derstanded import^ astonieth the simple reader in considera- 
tion of the matter, and useth these words as dust afore their 
eyes, which to wipe away, I am enforced to repeat the un- 
derstanding of these words oftener than else were necessary. 
These things well considered, no man doth more plainly confound 
this author than this saying of Origene^ as he all^eth it, what- 
soever other sentences he would pick out of Origene, when he 

9 useth liberty of allegories, to make him seem to say otherwise. 
And as I have declared afore, to understand Christ's words 
spiritually, is to understand them as the Spirit of God hath 
taught the Church, and to esteem God's mysteries most true in 
the substance of the thing so to be, although the manner exceed- 
eth our capacities, which is a spiritual understanding of the 
same. And here also this author putteth in for '* spiritually,** 
** figuratively,*' to deceive the reader, 


1 You obaenre my words here concerning Origen so cap^ 
tknisly^ as though I had gone about scrupuloudy to trans- 
late his sayings word by word, which I did not : but be- 
cause they were very long, I went about only to rehearse 
the effect of his mind briefly and plainly, which I have 



BOOK done faithfully and truly, although you captiously carp 
and reprehend the same. 

And whereas craftily to alter the sayings of Origene, you 
go about to put a diversity of the exhibition of Christ in 
these three things, in his word, in baptism, and in his holy i 
Supper^ as though in his word and in baptism he were 
exhibited spiritually, and in his holy Supper sensibly to be 
eaten with our mouths : this distinction you have dreamed 
in your sleep, or imagined of purpose. For Christ after 
one sort is exhibited in all these three, in his word, in 
baptism, and in the Lord^s Supper, that is to say, spiritually, 
and for so much in one sort, as before you have confessed 
yourself. And Origene putteth no such diversity as you 
here imagine, but declareth one manner of giving of Christ 
unto us, in his word, in baptism, and in the Lord's Supper, 
that is to say, in all these three, secundum speciem : that 
as unto the Jews Christ was given in figures, so to us he is 
^veu in specie, that is to say, in rei veritate, in his very 
nature : meaning nothing else, but that unto the Jews he 
was promised in figures, and to us after his incarnation he 
is married and joined in his proper kind, and in his words 
and sacraments as it were sensibly given. 

But howsoever I report Origene, you captiously and very 
untruly do report me. For whereas I say, that in God^s 
word, and in the sacraments of baptism and of the Lord^s 
Supper, Christ is manifested and exhibited unto us as its 
were face to face, and sensibly, you, leaving out these woitls 
As it were. " as it were,'' make a quarrel to this word " sensibly,'* or 
rather you make that word ^* sensibly" the foundation of 
all your weak building, as though there were no diiFerenoe 
between "sensibly," and "as it were sensibly ;" and as it were 
all one thing, a man to lie sleeping, and as he were sleep- 
ing; or dead, and as he were dead. Do not I write thus 
in my first book, that the washing in the water of baptism 
is as it were a showing of Christ before our eyes, and a 
sensible touching, feeling, and groping of him P And do 
these words import, that we see him and grope him indeed ? 
And further I say, that the eating and drinking of the 


sacramental bread and wine^ is as it were a showing of book 
Christ before our eyes, a smelling of him with our noses, * 
and a feeling and groping of him with our hands. And do 
we therefore see him indeed with our corporal eyes, smell 
him with our noses, and put our hands in his side and feel 
lus wounds ? If it were so indeed, I would not add these 
words, ** as it were."" For what speech were this, of a 
thing that is in deed, to say, ** as it were P^ For these words 
^* as it were,^ ^gnify that it is not so in deed. So now like- 
wise in this place of Origen, where it is said that Christ 
in his words and sacraments is manifested and exhibited 
unto us as it were face to face, and sensibly, it is not 
meant that Christ is so exhibited in deed face to face, and 
sensibly, but the sense is dean contrary, that he is not 
there g^ven sensibly, nor face to face. Thus it appeareth, 
how uprightly you handle this matter, and how truly you 
report my words. But the further you proceed in your 
answer, the more you show crafty juggling, legerdemain, 
4 pass a God^s name, to blind men^s eyes, strange speeches, 
new inventions, not without much impiety as the words 
sound, but what the meaning is, no man can tell but the 
maker himself. But as the words be placed, it seemeth you 
mean, that in the Lord^s Supper we be not made by Christ^s 
Spirit participant of the benefit of his passion ; nor by bap- 
tism or God^s word, we be not made participant of his 
Godhead by his humanity. And furthermore by this dis- 
tinction, (which you feign without any ground of Origen,) 
we receive not man and Grod in baptism ; nor in the Lord^s 
Supper, we be not by means of his Godhead made partici- 
pant of the effect of his passion. In baptism also by your 
distinction we receive not a pledge of the regeneration of 
our flesh, but in the Lord^s Supper : nor Christ is not truly 
present in baptism. Which your said differences do not 
only derogate and diminish tlie effect and dignity of Christ^s 
sacraments, but be also blasphemous against the ineffable 
unity of Christ^s person, separating his Divinity from his 
humanity. Here may all men of judgment see by expe-. 
rience how divinity is handled, when it cometh to the dis- 



BOOK cussion of ignorant lawyers. And in all these your sayings, if 5 
'''* you mean as the words be, I make an issue with you for 


Tiu^ >s- the price of a fagot. And where you say that our flesh in 
f^rt ^^ the general resurrection shall be spiritual ; here I ofier a like 
[1580.] issue; except you understand a spiritual body to be a sen- 
Q issue, g^i^i^ ^^^ palpable body, that hath all perfect members 
distinct, which thing in sundry places of your book you 
seem utterly to deny. 
Tbe third And where you make this difference between baptism 6 
r°i^8ol ^°^ ^^^ sacrament, that in baptism Christ is not really pre- 
sent, expounding <* really present"" to ngnify no more but to 
be in deed present, yet after a spiritual manner : if you 
deny that presence to be in baptism, yet the third fagot 
I will adventure with you, for your strange and ungodly 
doctrine within twenty lines together ; who may in equality 
of error contend with the Valentines, Arrians, or Anabap- 
Adverbs in But when you come here to your ** lies,^ declaring the 7 
^* L'S oj ^Qf|]s^ sensibly, really, substantially, corporally, and natu- 
rally, you speak so fondly, unlearnedly, and ignorantly, 
as they that know you not, might think that you under- 
stood neither grammar, English, nor reason. For who is 
so ignorant but he knoweth that adverbs that end in ^< ly"" 
be adverbs of quality, and being added to the verb, they 
express the manner, form, and fashion how a thing is, and 
not the substance of it. As speaking wisely, learnedly, and 
plainly, is to speak after such a form and manner as wise 
men, learned, and plain men do speak. And to do wisely 
and godly, is to do in such sort and fashion as wise and 
godly men do. And sometime the adverb ^^ ly^ signifieth 
the manner of a thing that is in deed, and sometime the 
manner of a thing that is not. As when a man speaketh 
wisely, that is wise indeed. And yet sometime we say 
fools speak wisely, which, although they be not wise, yet 
they utter some speeches in such sort, as though they were 
wise. The king we say useth himself princely in all his 
doings, (who is a prince in deed,) but we say also of an 
arrogant, wilful, and proud man, that he useth himself 


princely and imperiously^ although he be neither prince nor BOOK 
emperor : and yet we use so to speak of him, because of the ^"' 
manner, form, and fieishion of using himself. And if you an- 
swer foolishly and unleamedly, be you therefore a fool and 
unlearned ? Nay, but then your answers be made in such 
wise, manner, sort, and fashion, as you were neither learned 
nor wise. Or if you send to Rome, or receive private 
letters from thence, be you therefore a papist? Grod is 
judge thereof; but yet do you popishly, that is to say, use 
such manner and fashion as the papists do. But where the 
form and manner lacketh, there the adverbs of quality in 
** ly^ have no place, although the thing be there in deed. As 
when a wise man speaketh not in such a sort, in such a 
fashion and wise, as a wise man should speak; notwith- 
standing that he is wise in deed, yet we say not that he 
speaketh wisely, but foolishly. And the godly king David a Reg. xi. 
did uDgodly when he took Bersabe, and slew Urye her hus- 
band, because that manner of doing was not godly. So do 
all Englishmen understand by these words, sensibly, sub- 
stantially, corporally, naturally, carnally, spirituaUy, and 
such like, the manner and form of being, and not the thing 
itself without the said forms and manners. For when 
Christ was bom, and rose from death, and wrought mira- 
cles, we say not that he did these things naturally, because 
the mean und manner was not after a natural sort, although 
it was the selfsame Christ in nature; but we say that he 
did eat, drink, sleep, labour, and sweat, talk, and speak 
naturally, not because only of his nature, but because the 
manner and fashion of doing was such as we use to do. 
Likewise when Jesus passed through the people, and they Luke it. 
saw him not, he was not then sensibly and visibly among 
them, their eyes being letted in such sort that they could 
not see and perceive him. And so in all the rest of your 
adverbs, the speech admitteth not to say that Christ is 
there substantially, corporally, carnally, and sensibly, where 
he is not after a substantial, corporal, carnal, and sensual 
form and manner. This the husbandman at his plough, 
and his wife at her rock is able to judge, and to condemn you 



BOOK in this point, and so can the boys in the grammar school, 
^'*' that you speak neither according to the English tongue. 

grammar, nor reason, when you say that these words and 
adverbs, senably, corporally, and naturally, do not ognify 
a corporal, sensible, and natural manner. I have been 
here somewhat long and tedious, but the reader must par- 
don me, for this subtle and evil device of your own brain^ 
without ground or authority, contuneth such absurdities, 
and may cast such mists before men^s eyes to blind them 
that they should not see, that I am constrained to speak 
thus much in this matter, and yet more shall do, if this 
suffice not. But this one thing I wonder much at, that 
you being so much used and accustomed to lie, do not yet 
know what " ly'' meaneth. 

But at length in this matter, when you see none others 
shift, you be fain to fly to the Church for your shot 
anchor. And yet it is but the Romish Church, for the old 
and first Church of Christ is clearly against you. And 
Origen saith not as you do, that to understand the said 
words of Christ spiritually, is to understand them as the 9 
Spirit of God hath taught the Church ; but to understand 
them spiritually, is to understand them otherwise than the 
words sound; for he that understandeth them after the 
letter, saith Origen, understandeth them carnally, and that 
understanding hurteth and destroyeth. For in plain un- 
derstanding of eating and drinking without trope or figure, 
Christ''s flesh cannot be eaten nor his blood drunken. Next 
followeth in order St. Cyprian, of whom I write thus. 

[See vol. ii. p. 404, 405, " And likewise meant''——" of 
St. Cyprian.*"] 


CjpriaDus. As touching Cyprian, this author maketh an exposition of his i 
own device, which he would have taken for an answer unto him. 
Whereas Cyprian of all other, like as he is ancient, within two 

Melanc- hundred and fifty years of Christ, so did he write very openly % 
in the matter, and therefore Melancthon, in his Episde to OBco- 


lampadius, did choose bim for one^ whose words Id the afiirma- BOOK 
tion of Christ's true presence in the sacrament had no ambiguity. 

And like judgment doth Hippinus^ in his book before alleged, give Hippinas. 
of Cyprianus* fiuth in the sacrament, which two I allege to coun- 
tervail the judgment of this author, who speaketh of hb own 
head, as it liketh him, playing with the words gross and carnal, 
and using the word *' represent," as though it expressed a 6gure 
only. . Hippinus in the said book allegeth Cyprian to say, 
3 Lfib. 3*. Ad Quirinum^ that the body of our Lord is our sacrifice 
in flesh, meaning, as Hippinus saith, EucharUiiam, wherein St 
Augustine, as Hippinus saith further, in the prayer for his mother, 
speaking of the bread and wine of Eticharistia, saith, that in it is 
dispensed the holy host and sacrifice, whereby was cancelled the 
bill obligatory that was against us : and further Hippinus saith, 
that " the old men called the bread and wine of our Lord's Supper 
a sacrifice, an host, and oblation, for that specially, because they 
believed and taught the true body of Christ and his true blood to 
** be distribute in the bread and wine of Eucharistia, and as St August!- 
** Augustine saith, Ad Januarium, to enter in and be received with 
" the mouth of them that eat." These be Hippinus' very words, 
who because he is I think in this author's opinion taken for no 
papist, J rather speak in his words than in mine own, whom in 
another part of this work, this author doth as it were for 
charity by name slander to be a papist 3 wherefore the said Hip- 
pinus* words shall be as I thiok more weighty to oppress this 
author's talk than mine be ^ and therefore howsoever this author 
handleth before the words of St. Cyprian, De Unctione Chrwnatis, 
and the word "showing," out of his epistles, yet the same 
Cyprian's faith appeareth so certain otherwise, as those places 
shall need no further answer of me here, having brought 
forth the judgment of Hippinus and Melancthon, how they un- 
derstand St. Cyprian's faith, which thou, reader, oughtest to re- 
gard more than the assertion of this author, specially when thou 
hast read how he hath handled Hilarie, Cyrill, Theophylact, and 
Damascene, as I shall hereafter touch. 


Whether I make an exposition of Cyprian by mine own 
device, I leave to the judgment of the indifferent reader. 
And if I so do, why do not you prove the same substan- 

R 4 


BOOK tially a^nst me? For your own bare words without any 
proofi I trust the indifferent reader will not allow^ having 

such experience of you as he hath. And if Cyprian of 
all other had written most plainly against me^ (as you say 2 
without proof,) who thinketh that you would have omitted 

Meianc- here Cyprian^s words, and have fled to Melancthon and 

2?°°' Epinus for succour ? 

And why do you allege their authority for you, which 
in no wise you admit when they be brought against you ? 
But it seemeth that you be faint-hearted in this matter, and 
be^n to shrink, and like one that refuseth the combat^ and 
findeth the shift to put another in his place, even so it 
seemeth you would draw back yourself from the danger, 
and set me to fight with other men, that in the mean time 
you might be an idle looker on. And if you^ as grand 
captain, take them but as mean soldiers to fight in your 
quarrel, you shall have little aid at their hands : for their 
writings declare openly that they be against you more than 
me, although in this place you bring them for your part, 
and report them to say more and otherwise than they say 
in deed. 

And as for Cyprian and St. Augusdne here by you 3 
alleged, they serve nothing for your purpose, nor speak 
nothing against me, by Epinus^ own judgment. For Epinus 
saith, that Eucharistia is called a sacrifice, because it is a re- 
membrance of the true sacrifice, which was offered upon 
the cross, and that in it is dispensed the very body and 
blood, yea, the very death of Christ, (as he allegeth of 
St. Augustine in that place,) the holy sacrifice whereby he 
blotted out and cancelled the obligation of death which 
was against us, nailing it upon the cross, and in his own 
person wan the victory, and triumphed against the princes 
and powers of darkness. This passion, death, and victory 
of Christ is dispensed and distributed in the Lord'^s holy 
Supper, and daily among Christ^s holy people. And yet 
all this requireth no corporal presence of Christ in the 
sacrament, nor the words of Cyprian Ad Quirinum neither. 
For if they did, then was Christ^s flesh corporally present 


in the sacrifice of the old testament 1500 years before he BOOK 
was born : for of those sacrifices speaketh that text alleged ^'^' 
by Cyprian Ad Quirinum \ whereof Epinus and you gather 
these words, that the body of our Lord is our sacrifice in 
flesh. And howsoever you wrest Melancthon or Epinus, 
they condemn clearly your doctrine, that Christ s body is 
corporally contained under the forms or accidences of bread 
and wine. Next in my book is Hilarius. 

[See vol. ii. p. 40&— 407. « But Hilarius^ ^*«plainly 

and shortly.*"] 


This answer to Hilarie in the seventy-eighth leaf requireth a 
I plain precise issue, worthy to be tried and apparent at hand. 
The aU^;ation of Hilarie toucheth specially me, who do say and 
maintain that I cited Hilarie truly, (as the copy did serve,) and 
did translate him truly in English after the same words in Latin ^. An iuae. 
This is one issue, which 1 qualify with a copy^ because I have 
Hilarie now better correct, which better correction setteth forth Hylarias. 
more lively the truth than the other did, and therefore that 1 did 
translate was not so much to the advantage of that I alleged 
Hilarie for, as is that in the book that I have now better cor- 
rect. Hilarie*s words in the book newly corrected be these : 
" Si enim vere Verbum caro factum est, et nos vere Verbum car- 
nem cibo Dominico sumimus, quomodo non naturaliter manere 
in nobis existimandus est } qui et naturam camis nostrse Jam 
inseparabilem sibi homo natus assumpsit, et naturam carnis 
*' suae ad naturam stemitatis sub sacramento nobis communi- 
'* cands carnis admiscuit. Ita enim omnes unum sumus, quia 
s«* et in Christo Pater est, et Christus in nobis est^. Quisquis 
*' ergo naturaliter Patrem in Christo negabit, neget prius non na- 
** turaliter vel se in 2 Christo, vel Christum sibi inesse, quia in 
'* Christo Pater, et Christus iu nobis unum in iis esse nos faciunt. 
** Si vere igitur camem corporis nostri Christus assumpsit, et 

b Cyprian. Ad Quirintim, cap. 94. 

^ [See Gardyner^s Detection of the DeviPt SqpAti/ry, where this pas- 
sage from Hilary is cited. The readings then admitted by him, which 
he now corrected, are subjoined.] ' [Est, omitted.] > [In, omitted.] 




BOOK " vere homo ille qui ex Maria natiu fuit Christus est, nosque vere^ 
^^^' ** sub mysterio carnem corporia sui sumimus^ et per hoc unum 
erimusy quia Pater in eo est, et ille in nobis, quomodo volunta- 
tis unitas asseritur^, cum naturalis per Sacramentum proprietas 
'^ perfects^ sacramentum sit unitatis V* My translation is this* 
If the Word was made verily flesh, and we verily receive the 
Word being flesh in our Lord's meat, how shall not Christ be 
thought to dwell naturally in us, who being bom man, hath 
taken unto him the nature of our flesh that cannot be severed, 
*' and hath put together the nature of his flesh to the nature of 
his eternity, under the sacrament of the communion of his 
flesh unto us, for so we be all one, because the Father is 
'* in Christ, and Christ in us. Wherefore, whosoever will deny 
" the Father to be naturally in Christ, must deny first either 
" himself to be naturally in Christ, or Christ not to be naturally 
'' in him, for the being of the Father in Christ, and the being 
'* of Christ in us, maketh us to be one in them. And therefore, 
" if Christ hath taken verily the flesh of our body, and the man 
" that was born of the viigin Mary is verily Christ, and also we 
'* verily receive under a mystery the flesh of his body, by means 
" whereof we shall be one, for the Father is in Christ, and 
** Christ in us : how shall that be called the unity of will, when 
'* the natural propriety brought to pass by the sacrament is the 
" sacrament of perfect unity V* 

This translation differeth from mine other whereat this author 
findeth fault; but wherein? The word *' vero** was in the other copy 
an adjective, and I joined it with ** mysterio,*' and therefore said 
the true mystery, which word " mystery** needed no such adjec- 
tive " true,** for every mystery is true of itself. But to say, as 
Hilarie truly correct saith, that we receive under the mystery 
" truly" the flesh of Christ's body, that word " truly,*' so placed, 3 
setteth forth lively the real presence and substantial presence of 
that is received, and repeateth again the same that was before 
said, to the more vehemency of it. So as this correction is better 
than my first copy, and according to this correction is Hilarius 
alleged by Melancthon to CScolampadius, for the same purpose I 
all^ him. Another alteration in the translation thou seest,4 
reader, in the word "perfectaB," which in my copy was "perfecta," 

3 [Vero.] 4 [Asseretur.] S [Perfecta.] 


and so waa joined to " proprietas," which now in the genitive BOOK 
case joined to *' unitatis," giveth an excellent sense to the dignity 

of the sacrament, bow the natural propriety by the sacrament, is An issue. 

5 a sacrament of perfect unity, so as the perfect unity of us with 
Christ, is to haye his flesh in us, and to have Christ bodily and 
Daturally dwelling in us by his manhood, as he dwelleth in us 
spiritually by his Godhead; and now I speak in such phrase as 
Hikrie and Cyrill speak, and use the words as they use them, 
whatsoever this author saith ; as I will justify by their plain words. 

6 And so I join now with this author an issue, that I have not per- 
versely used the allegation of Hilarie, but alleged him as one that 
speaketh most clearly of this matter ; which Hilarie in his eighth 

7 book De TrmUate entreateth how many divers ways we be one in Unity in 

8 Christ, among which he accounteth faith for one. Then he com- ^Dity in 
eth to the unity in baptism, where he handleth the matter above baptism. 
some capacities, and because there is but one baptism, and all ^'^ ^'^ 
that be baptized be so regenerate in one dispensation^ and do 

the same thing, and be one in one, they that be one by the same 
thing, be, as he saith, in nature one. From that unity in baptism 
he Cometh to declare our unity with Christ in flesh, which he call- 
eth the sacrament of perfect unity, declaring how it is^ when Unity in 
Christ, who took truly our flesh mortal in the Virgin's womb, de- ^f^ -i 
livereth us the same flesh glorified truly to be communicate with our 
flesh, whereby, as we be naturally in Christ, so Christ is naturally 
in us, and when this is brought to pass, then is the unity between 
Christ and us perfected; for as Christ is naturally in the Father 
of the same essence, by the divine nature, and God the Fa- 
ther naturally in Christ his Son, very God of the same essence 
in the dirine nature : so we be naturally in Christ by our 
natural flesh, which he took in the Virgin's womb, and be 
naturally in us, by the same flesh in him glorified, and given 
to us, and received of us in the sacrament. For Hilarie saith Hiiarius. 
in plain words, how Christ's very flesh, and Christ's very blood, 
received and drunken '*accepta et hauHcC' bring ^is to pass. 
And it is notable, how Hilarie compareth together the ** truly*' in 
Christ*s taking of our flesh in the Virgin's womb, with the '* truly ' 
of our taking of his flesh *' in abo Daminico" ** in our Lord's meat}" 
by which words he expresseth the sacrament, and after reproveth 
those that said we were only united by obedience and will of re- 
ligion to Christ, and by him so to the Father, as though by the 
sacrament of flesh and blood no propriety of natural communion 


BOOK were given unto us ; whereas both by the honour pven unto us, 


we be the sons of God, and by the Son dwelling carnally in us; 

and we being corporally and inseparably unite in him, the mystery 
of true and natural unity is to be preached. These be Hilarie'a 
words, for this latter part ; where thou hearest, reader, the Son of 
God to dwell carnally in us, not after man's gross imagination. 
Carnally, for we may not so think of godly mysteries, but '* carnally" is re- 
[1593*] ferred to the truth of Christ^s flesh given to us in this sacrament, 
Natarally. and so is *' naturally ' to be understanded, that we receiye Christ's 
^'^ '^ natural flesh, for the truth of it, as Christ received our natural 
flesh of the Virgin, although we receive Christ's flesh glorified, in- 
corruptible, very spiritual, and in a spiritual manner delivered 
unto us. Here is mention made of the word " corporal,** but I 
shall speak of that in the discussion of Cyrill. This Hilarie was 
before St. Augustine, and was known both of him and St Hie- 
rome, who called him tubam Latini eloquii, against the Arrians. 9 
Never man found fiiult at this notable place of Hilarie. 

Now let us consider how the author of this book forgetteth hiroselfj 10 
to call Christ in us naturally by his Godhead, which were then to 
make us all gods by nature, which is over great an absurdity, and 
Christ in his divine nature dwelleth only in his Father naturally, 
and in us by grace. But as we receive him in the sacrament of > > 
his flesh and blood, if we receive him worthily, so dwelleth he in 
us naturally, for the natural communication of our nature and his. 
And therefore, where this author reporteth Hilarie to make no 
difference between our union to Christ in baptism and in the is 
Supper, let him trust him no more that told him so, or if this au- 
thor will take upon him as of his own knowledge, then I would 
say, if he were another, an answer in French, that I will not ex- 
Ab issue, press. And hereupon will I Join the issue, that in Hilarie the 
matter b so plain otherwise than this author rehearseth, as it hath 
no colour of defence to the contrary. And what Hilarie speaketh 
of baptism and our unity therein, I have before touched, and this 
unity in flesh is after treated apart. What shall I say to this so 
manifest untruth ? but that it confirmeth that I have in other ob- 
served, how there was never one of them that I have read writ- 
ing agunst the sacrament, but hath in his writings said somewhat 
so evidently in the matter or out of the matter discrepant fit>m 
truth, as might be a certain mark to judge the quality of his 



Canterbury. BOOK 

. Ill* 
Here you confess that you cited Hilary <* untruly, but '• — 

you impute the fault to your copy. What copy you had I 
know not ; but as well the citation of Melancthon, as all the 
print books that ever I saw, have otherwise than you have 
written, and therefore it seemeth that you never read any 
printed book of Hilarius. Marry it might be that you had 
from Smith a false copy written, who informed me, that Smyth, 
you had of him all the authorities that be in your book* 
And having all the authorities that he had with great tra- 
vail gathered, by and by you made your book, and stole 
fix>m him all his thank and glory, like unto Esop^s chough, 
which plumed himself with other birds^ feathers. But where- 
soever you had your copy, all the books set forth by public 
faith have otherwise than you have cited. And although 
the false allegation of Hilary toucheth you somewhat, yet 
chiefly it toucheth Smith, who hath erred much worse in 
his translation ^ than you have done ; albeit neither of you 
both handle the matter rincerely and faithfully, nor agree 
the one with the other* 

I But I trow it be your chance to light upon false books. 
For whereas in this sentence, ^* Quisquis ergo naturaliter 
^ Patrem in Christo negabit, neget prius naturaliter vel se 
*' in Christo, vel Christum sibi inesse,^ one false print for 

** naturaliter^^ hath *^ non naturaliter,^ it seemeth that you Non natu- 

^ [It is sineular that Cranmer, though he complained of the inaccuracj 
with which Hilary was cited, yet left an error m his own translation of 
the passage, which subjected him afterwards to a charge of corrupting 
it. see Defence f vol. ii. p. 406. and Disputation at 0:^ord tnth Che£- 

« [In his Anertion of the Sacrament of the Altar. See an extract from 
his translation, which fully bears out Cranmer's charge of unfaithful- 
ness, in the Ditputation at Oxford with ChedseyJ] 

f [Cranmer's strictures are not supported by the authority of the Be- 
nedictine editors, who read with Gardyner ** non naturaliter.'' He is 
however clearly right in the interpretation which he gives of Hilary's 
words. But Gardyner probably intended to convey the same meaning, 
though he has confused nis sentence by adopting, like Hilary, the Greek 
idiom of a double negative. He was far too acute a disputant, to 
" overthrow himself," according to Cranmer's taunt, " quite and clean 
** hj his own translation." No heavier chaise therefore can be brought 
against him here, than that of writing bad English : and even this, per- 
haps, if we consider the frequent oecurrence of the double negative in 


BOOK chanced upon that false print. For if you have found 
Hilary truly corrected, as you say you have, your fault is 

the more, that out of a true copy would pick out an untrue 
translation. And if you have so done, then by putting in a 
little pretty *^ not"*^ where none ought to be, widi that little 
pretty trip you have clean overthrown yourself. For if it 
be an error to deny that Christ is not naturally in us, (as it 
is here rehearsed for an error,) then must it be an error to 
a£Snn that Christ is naturally in us. For it is all one thing, 
to deny that he is not, and to afBrm that he is naturally in 
us. And so by your own translation you overthrow your- 
self quite and clean, in that you say in many places of your 
book, that Christ is naturally in us, and ground your saying 
upon Hilarie. Whereas now by your own translation, Hi- 
larie rejecteth that clearly as an heinous error. 

Trnly. And as concerning this word ^* truly ,^ it setteth not lively 3 

forth a real and substantial presence, as you say it doth, for 
Christ is truly in all his faithful people, and they truly eat 
his flesh and drink his blood, and yet not by a real and cor- 
poral, but by a spiritual and effectual presence. 

Perfecta. And as concerning the word *^ perfecta"*^ or ^' perfectss,^ in 4 
the print which I have of your book, is neither of both, 
but be left quite out. Nevertheless that fault I impute to 
no untruth in you, but rather to the negligence either of 
your pen, or of the printer. 

But for the perfectness of the unity between Christ and 5 
us, you declare here the perfect unity to be that, which is 
but the one half of it. For the perfect unity of us with 
Christ, is not only to have Christ corporally and naturally 
dwelling in us. but likewise we to dwell corporally and na- 
turally in him. And Hilary declareth the second part to 
pertain to our unity with Christ, as well as the first, which 
of sleight and policy you leave out purposely, because it 
declareth the meaning of the first part, which is not that 


mer's manuscript to the Embden edition of the Defence, and have 
been copied from thence with corrections, vol. ii. p. 407, &c.] 


Christ is in them that receive the sacrament^ and when they book 
reodve the sacrament only, but that he naturally tarrieth ^"' 
and dwelleth in all them that pertain to him^ whether they 
receive the sacrament or no. And as he dwelleth naturally 
in them, so do they in him. 
6 And although you have excused your perversity by your Mine issue. 
false copy, yet here I will join an issue with you, that you ['S^oJ 
did neither allege Hilarie^s words before truly, nor yet now 
do truly declare them. As for the first part you have con- 
fessed yourself, that you were deceived by a false copy. 
And therefore in this part, I plead that you be guilty by 
your own confession. And as concerning the second part, 
Hilary speaketh not of the unity of Christ with the sacra- 
ment, nor of the unity of Christ with us only when we re- 
ceive the sacrament, nor of the unity of us with Christ only, 
but also with his Father, by which unity we dwell in Christ, 
and Christ in us, and also we dwell in the Father, and the 
Father in us. For as Christ being in his Father, and his John xir. 
Father in him, hath life of his Father, so he being in us, JP^° ^*. 
^pd we in him, giveth unto us the nature of his eternity, 
which he received of his Father ; that is to say, immortality 
and life everlasting, which is the nature of his Grodhead. 
And so have we the Father and the Son dwelling in us na- Natarally. 
turally, and we in them, forasmuch as he giveth to us the 
nature of his eternity, which he had of his Father, and ho- 
noureth us with that honour which he had of his Father. 
But Christ giveth not this nature of eternity to the sacra- 
ment, except you will say, that the sacrament shall have 
everlasting life, as you must needs say, if Christ dwell na- 
turally in it, after Hilarie^s manner of reasoning. For by 
the saying of Hilarie, where Christ dwelleth, there dwelleth 
his Father, and giveth eternal life by his Son. 

And so be you a goodly saviour, that can bring to ever- 
lasting life both brrad and drink, which never had life. 
But as this nature of eternity is not given to the sacrament, 
80 is it not given to them that unworthily receive the sacra- 
ment, which eat and drink their own damnation. Nor it is 
not given to the lively members of Christ, only when they 


BOOK receive the sacrament, but bo long as tbey spiritually feed 
^^^' upon Christ, eating his flesh and drinking his blood, dither 
in this life, or in the life to come ; for so long have th^ 
Christ naturally dwelling in them, and they in him. And 
as the Father naturally dwelleth in Christ, so by Christ 
doth he naturally dwell in us. 

And this is Hilarie^s mind, to tell how Christ and his 
Father dwell naturally in his faithful members, and what 
unity we have with them, (that is to say, an unity of na- 
ture, and not of will only,) and not to tell how Christ dwell- 
eth in the sacrament, or in them that unworthily recdve the 
' sacrament : or if they worthily receive it, that he dwelleth 
in them at that time only, when they receive the sacrament. 
And yet he saith, that this unity of faithful people unto 7 
Grod is by faith, taught by the sacrament of baptism and 
of the Lord^s table, but wrought by Christ by the sacra- 
ment and mystery of his incarnation and redemption, wher&. 
by he humbled himself unto the lowliness of our feeble na- 
ture, that he might exalt us to the dignity of his godly na- 
ture^ and join us unto his Father in the nature of his eter- 

Thus is plainly declared Hilarie^s mind, who meant no* 
thing less than, as you say, to entreat how many divers 
ways we be one in Christ, but only to entreat and prove, 
that we be naturally in Christ and Christ in us. And this 
one thing he proveth by our futh, and by the sacrament of 
baptism, and of the Lord^s Supper, and still he saith as well 
that we be naturally and corporally in him, as that he is na- 
turally in us. 

And where you speak of the unity in baptism, and say 
that Hilarius handleth that matter above some capadties ; 8 
howsoever Hilary handleth the matter, you handle it in 
such sort as I think passeth all menu's capacities, unless 
yourself make a large commentary thereto. For what these 
your words mean, << because there is but one baptism, and 
*^ all that be baptized be so regenerate in one dispensation, 
** and do the same thing, and be one in one, they that be 
" one by the same thing, be, as he saith, in nature one,^ and 


what that one thing is which they do that be baptized, BOOK 
I think no man can tell, except you read the riddle your- '"• 

And now to your issue. If you can show of the words of 
Hilarie in this place, that Christ is naturally in the sacra- 
ments of bread and wine, or in wicked persons, or in godly 
persons only when they receive the sacrament, then will I 
confess the issue to pass upon your ade, that you have de- 
dared this author truly, and that he maketh most clearly 
for you against me. And if you cannot show this by Hila- 
rie^s words, then must you hold up your hand, and say, 

And yet furthermore, when Hilary saith that we be na- 
turally in Christ, he meaneth not that our bodies be con- 
tained within the compass of his body, but that we receive 
his natural eternity. And so likewise, when he saith that 
Christ dwelleth naturally and carnally in us, he meaneth 
not that his body is contained corporally within the compass 
of our mouths or bodies, (which you must prove by his 
plain words, if you will justify your issue that he speaketh 
most clearly for you,) but he meaneth that Christ commu- 
nicateth and ^veth unto us the nature of his eternity or 
everlasting life. And he dwelleth in us by his incarnation, 
as St. John sayeth : Verbum caro Jactum est, et habitaviiJchn i. 
in nobis f The Word xoas made flesh, and dwelled in us. 
And as he may be said to dwell in us by receiving of our 
mortal nature, so may we be said to dwell in him by receiving 
9 the nature of his immortality. And never man found fault 
(as you truly say) at this notable place of Hilary : nor 
again never learned man hitherto expounded him as you 
lo And when I said that Christ is in us naturally by his 
Godhead, I forgat not what I said, as you say of me ; for 
I plainly expounded what I meant by *' naturally,^ that is to 
say, not by natural substance to make us gods, but by na^ 
tural condition giving unto us immortality and everlasting 
life, which he had of his Father, and so making us par- 
takers of his godly nature, and uniting us to his Father. 

VOL. III. s 


BOOK And if we attain to the unity of his Father, why not unto 
_Jf5l_the unity of the Godhead, not by natural substance, but by 

natural propriety? As Cyrill saith that we be made the 
children of God and heavenly men by participation of the 

i Pet. i. divine nature, as St. Peter also teacheth. And so be we one 
in the Father, in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. 

And where you say, that we rec^ve Christ in the sacra* 
ment of his flesh and blood, if we receive him worthily; n 
here you have given good evidence against yourself, that we 
receive him not, and that he dwelleth not in us naturally, 
except we receive him worthily. And therefore where you 
say, that there is none that writeth against the truth in the 
sacrament, but he hath in his writings somewhat discrepant 
from truth that might be a certain mark to judge his spirit, 
this is so true, that yourself difler not only from the truth in 
a number of places, but also from your own sayings. 

And where you bid me trust him no more that told me, 12 
that Hilary maketh no difierence between our union in 
Christ in baptism, and in his holy Supper, it was very Hi- 
lary himself of whom I learned it, who saith that in both 
the sacraments the union is natural, and not in will only. 

Mine imae. And if you will say the contrary, I must tell you the French 
answer that you would tell me. And herein I will not re- 
fuse your issue. Now come we to Cyrill, of whom I write 
as foUoweth. 

[See vol. ii. p. 408 — 412. " And this answer'' « as 



The author saith, such answer as he made to Hilary will serve 1 
Cyril. for Cyrill, and in deed to say truth it is made after the same sort, 
and bath even such an error as the other had, saving it may be ex- 
cused by ignorance. For where the author travaiieth here to ex- 
pound the word ''corporally/* which is a sore word in Cyrill « 
against this author, and therefore taketb labour to temper it with 
the word '< corporaliter" in St. Paul applied to the dwelling of 
the Divinity in Christ, and yet not content therewith, maketh fur- 
ther search, and would gladly have somewhat to confirm his fancy 


out of Cyrill himself, and seeketh in Cyrill where it is DOt to be BOOK 
found, and seeketh not where it is to be found; for Cyrill tell- ^^^' 
eth himself plainly, what he meaneth by the word " corporally 3" 
which place and this author had found, he might have spared a 
great many of words uttered by divination, but then the truth of 
that place hindereth and qualeth in manner all the book : I will 
at my peril bring forth CyrilFs own words truly upon the seven- 

3 teenth chapter of St John : ''Corporaliter Filius per benedictionem 
" mysticam nobis ut homo unitur, spiritualiter autem ut Deuss.** 
Which be in English thus much to say : " The Son is united as 
'* man corporally to us by the mystical benediction, spiritually as 
*' God." These be Cyrill's words, who nameth the sacrament of 
the body and blood of Christ the mystical benediction, and show- 
eth in this sentence how himself understandeth the words " cor- 

4 ** porally** and *' spiritually ;** that is to say, when Christ uniteth 
himself to us as man, which he doth giving his body in this sacra* 
ment to such as worthily receive it, then he dwelleth in them cor- 
porally ; which Christ was before in them spiritually, or ebe they 
could not worthily receive him to the effect of that unity corporal, 

5 and corporal dwelling ; by which word *' corporal** is understand- 
ed no grossness at all, which the nature of a mystery excludeth, 
and yet keepeth truth still, being the understanding only attained 

6 by faith. But where the author of the book allegeth Cyrill in 
words to deny the eating of a man, and to affirm the receiving in 
this sacrament to be only by faith, it shall appear, I doubt not, 
upon further discussion, that Cyrill saith not so ; and the transla- 
tions of Cyrill into Latin after the print of Basil, in a book call- 
ed Aniidotum^ and of whole Cyrilfs works printed at Colen, have 
not in that place such sentence. So as following the testimony of 
those books set forth by public faith in two sundry places, I 
should call the allegation of Cyrill made by this author in this 
point untnie, as it is in deed in the matter untrue. 

And yet because the original error proceedeth from GScolam- 
pttdius, it shall serve to good purpose to direct the original fault 
to him, as he well deserveth to be, as he is noted guilty of it» 
whose reputation deceived many in the matter of the sacrament ; 
and being well noted how the same CBcolampadius corrupteth 
Cyrill, it may percase somewhat work with this author to con- 
sider how he hath in this place been deceived by him. I will 

I Lege Cyrillom In Joan, lib. xi. cap. 27. [1580.] 



BOOK ynte here the very words of Cyrill in Greek, as they be of CBoo- 
^^^- lampadius brought forth and published in his name $ whereby the 
reader that understandeth the Greek (as many do at this time) 
may judge of GScolampadius* conscience in handling this matter. 
The woids of Cyrill be alleged of (Ecolampadius to be these in 
Greek ; *Ap* o^y m mp6v rtva v2iv «il Xpurrhif vapk r^v in Ocov Oc^v 
\6yov rhfV (ftaafSfUPOP tlwai d tafi t fiawvmu, ^ Ktd t6 rijs dmNrroX^f 

napurrtuf Sfoaims tts €(irrikavs Kwouu rSw irurrtv6rrttp vow, jcal XoyuT' 
fMoU SbfBpmrivoig iirtx*ip&if, & ii6v^ Koi y^tkj xal dCrfrtfr^ irUmi Xofjfid^ 
prratK These words be by (Ecolampadius translated in this wise : 
'* Nonne igitur eum qui videtur Fiiium et Christum alium a Deo 
<< verbo qui ex Deo esse affirmant^ cui apostolatus functio tributa 
" sit ? Non enim sacramentum nostrum hominis manducationem 
assent, mentes credentium ad crassas cogitationes irreligiose in- 
trotrudens, et humanis cogitationibus subjicere enitens, ea quae 
sola, et pura, et inexquisita fide capiuntur.** This is CEcolam* 
padius* translation of the Greek, as the same is by CEcolampa- 
dius alleged. Which compared with the Greek, and the congruity 
and phrase of the Greek tongue considered, doth plainly open a 
corruption in the Greek text. First in the word dia/Sc/SdioiWiu, 
which should be a participle in the singular number tufitfiaiSw^ as 
irapiOTttv and itnxeip&v ; all which participles depend of the third 
person reproved of Cyrill, and nominative case to the verb diro^oi. 
swi, which hath the noun fiwrnipiw his accusative case ; for con- 
gruity will not sufier fivarriptw to be the nominatiye case, as CEoo- 
lampadius maketh it ; because napttrr&v and €trixtif>&p should then 
depend on it, which be the masculine gender, and finwTtfptaif the 
neuter ; and besides that, the sense hath so no good reason, to at- 
tribute assertion to the mystery by the way of declaration : the 
mystery of nature secret hath need of declaration, and maketh 
none, but hideth rather; and the mystery cannot declare pro- 
perly, that should lead or subdue men to vain imagination. But 
Cyrill, intending to reprove the conclusion of him that attri- 
buteth to that is seen in Christ, (the nature of his humanity,) 
the office of the apostle, and so thereby seemeth to make in Christ 

^ [See among the Authorities in the Appendix the passage as read io 
Aubert's edition of Cyril : whence it will appear that G^yner is as 
unsuccessful in his conjecture of M^wafuymv, as he is successful in his 
exposure of (Ecolampadius's mistranslation.] 


two Mferal persons, esteeming that is seen another son from the BOOK 

f If 

seeond person, showeth how that man so concluding ^ doth affirm 
an absurdity ; that is to say, declareth that mystery of our ^ ** huma- 
'* nam commixtionem/* for so hath the public translation, and not 
iMpMTo^oyMF, which should signify eating of a man, as CEcolaro- 
padius wodd have it, and cannot with this construction to make 
lavarlipum the accusative case have any sense ; and then that man so 
concluding, may be said therewith leading ^ the mind of them that 
believe, into slender and dark imaginations or thoughts, and so 
going about ^ to bring under man*s reasonings such things as be 
taken or understandcd ^ by an only simple, bare, and no curious 
faith. And this is uttered by Cyrill by interrogation, 'A/>' o^, 
which continueth unto the last word of all that is here written in 
Greek, ending in the word Xoftfiavrrai, But CEcolampadius^ to 
frame these words to his purpose, corrupteth the participle du^- 
/SoHtr, and maketh it Hioptfiatovyrat, whereby he might cut off the 
interrogative ; and then is he yet fain to add evidently that is not 
in the Greek, a copulative causal '^enim ;*' and then, when fiwrrf^ 
piov is by the cutting off the interrogation and the addition of 
'* enim'* made the nominative case, then cannot impurr&if and im- 
X^H^ depend of it, because of the gender; and r6 fiwrniptopy because 
of the article, determineth the principal mystery in Christ*s person; 
and after the public translation it should seem the Greek word was 
not <M/MMro^ay^, but iMpanrofuyuiy, which in the public transla- 
tion 18 expressed with these two words, " humanam commix- 
•• tionem.** 

This one place, and there were no mo like, may show with what 
conscience (Eoolampadius handled the matter of the sacrament ; 
who was learned in the Greek tongue, much exercised in transla* 
tions, and had once written a grammar of the Greek, and yet in 
this place abuseth himself and the reader in perverting Cyrill 
against all congruities of the speech, against the proper significa- 
tion of the words, against the convenient connexion of the matter, 
with depravation of the phrase, and corruption of certain words, 
all against the common and public translation ; aud when he hath 
done all this, concludeth in the end that he hath translate the 
Greek faithfully, when there is by him used no good faith at all, 
but credit and estimation of learning by him abused, to deceive 
well meaning simplicity, and serveth for some defence to such as 

n lri;^«^«*. b Xm/tfimnrm, 



BOOK be bold to use and follow his authority in this matter: as theau- 
III. thor of the book seemeth to have followed him herein, for else the 
public authentic translations which be abroad, as I said, of the 
prints of Basill and Colen, have no such matter^ and therefore the 
fault of the author is to leave public truth, and search matter 
whispered in comers. But this much must be granted, though in 
the principal matter, that in the mystery of the sacrament we 
roust exclude all grossness, and yet for the truth of God*s se- 7 
cret work in the sacrament, that in such as receive the sa- 
crament worthily, Christ dwelleth in them corporally, as Cyrill 
saith, and naturally and carnally, as Hilary saith. And with this 
true understanding, after the simplicity of a Christian faith, which 
was in these fathers, Hilary and Cyrill, the contention of these 
three envious words^ in gross capacities grossly taken, " natural," 
** carnal," and " corporal/' which carnality hath engendered, 
might soon be much assuaged; and this author also considering with 
himself how much he hath been overseen in the understanding of 
them, and the speciality in this place of himself and GScolam- 
padius, might take occasion to repent and call home himself who 
wonderfully wandereth in this matter of the sacrament, and hav- 
ing lost his right way, break eth up hedges and leapeth over ditches, 
with a wondrous travail to go whither he would, not being, not 8 
yet, as appeareth, determined where he would rest, by the variety 
of his own doctrine, as may appear in sundry places, if they be 
compared together. 

I said very truly, when I said that such answer as I made i 
to Hilary will serve for Cyrill, for so will it do in deed, al- 
though you wrangle and strive therein never so much. For 
Cyrill and Hilary entreat both of one matter, that we be 
united together and with Christ, not only in will but also in 
nature ; and be made one, not only in consent of godly reli- 
gion, but also that Christ, taking our corporal nature upon 
him, hath made us partakers of his godly nature, knitting 
us together with him unto his Father and to his Holy Spirit. 
Now let the indifferent reader judge^ whether you or I be ia 
error, and whether of us both hath most need to excuse 
himself of ignorance. Would Grod you were as ready, hum- 
bly to yield in those manifest errors which be proved against 
you, as you be stout to take upon you a knowledge in those 


things wherein ye be most ignorant. But (l>i\avrCa is a peri- BOOK 
lous witch. L_ 

Now whereas I have truly expounded this word *^ cor- Corporally. 
<< poraHy**" in Cyrill, when he saith that Christ dwelleth cor- 
porally in us» and have declared how that word ^^ corporally ^^ 
as Cyrill understandeth it, maketh nothing for your pur- 
pose, that Chrises flesh should be corporally contained (as 
you understand the matter) under the form of bread ; for 
he neither saith that Christ dwelleth corporally in the bread, 
nor that he dwelleth in them corporally that be not lively 
members of his body, nor that he dwelleth in his lively 
members at such time only as they receive the sacrament, 
nor that he dwelleth in us corporally, and not we in him ; 
but he saith as well that we dwell in him, as that he dwell- 
eth in us : and when I have also declared that CyrilPs mean- 
ing was this, that as the vine and branches be both of one 
nature, so the Son of God taking unto him our human na- 
ture, and making us partakers of his divine nature, giving 
unto us immortality and everlasting life, doth so dwell natu- 
rally and corporally in us, and maketh us to dwell naturally 
and corporally in him : and whereas I have proved this 
by CyrilFs own words^ as well in that place in his tenth book 
upon St. Johns's Gospel, the thirteenth chapter, as in his fourth 
book, the seventeenth chapter : you answer no more to all 
this, but say that I seek in Cyrill where it is not to be found, 
and seek not where it is to be found. A substantial answer, 
be you sure, and a learned. For you do here like a keeper 
which I knew once, required to follow a suit with his hound, 
after one that had stolen a deer ; and when his hound was in 
his right suit, and had his game fresh before him, and came 
near to the house and place where the deer was indeed, after 
he had a little inkling that it was a special friend of his that 
killed the deer, and then being loth to find the suit, he 
plucked back his hound, b«ng in the right way, and ap- 
pointed him to hunt in another place, where the game was not, 
and so deceived all them that followed him, as you would 
here do to as many as will follow you. For you promise to 
bring the reader to a place where he shall find the meaning 



BOOK of thifl word ^* corporally,^ and when he oometh to the place 
^^^' where you appmnt^ the word is spoken of there, but the 
meaning thereof is not declared, ndther by you nor by 
Cyrill, in that place : and so the reader by your fair pro- 
mise is brought from the place, where the game is truly in 
deed, and brought to another place where he is utterly dis- 
appointed of that he sought for. 

For where you send the reader to this place of Cyrill, *' the 3 
** Son is united as man corporally unto us by the mystical be- 
**' nediction, spiritually as God C* here indeed in this sentence 
Cyrill nameth this word ^* corporally,^ but he telledi not the 
meaning thereof, which you promised the reader that he 
should find here. 

Nevertheless Cyrill meaneth no more by these words but 
that Christ is united unto us two manner of ways, by his 
body, and by his spirit : and he is also a band and knot to 
bind and join us to his Father, being knit in nature unto 
both ; to us as a natural man, and to his Father as natural 
God, and himself knitting us and God his Father toge- 

And although Cyrill say that Christ is united unto us 
corporally by the mystical benediction, yet in that place the 
mystical benediction may well be understand of his incarna- 
tion i, which as Cyrill and Hilary both call an high mystery, 
so was it to us a marvellous benediction, that he that was 
immortal God would become for us a mortal man ; which 
mystery St. Paul saith was without controversy great, and 
I Tim. iU. ^^ ^^'^ ^^^"^ ^^^ w(N*ld, and at the last opened, that Gen- 
Eph. iiL ^leg should be made partakers of the promises in Christ, 
which by his flesh came down unto us. 

But to give you all the advantage that may be, I will 
grant, for your pleasure, that by the mystical benediction 
Cyrill understood the sacrament of Christ^s flesh and blood, 
as you say, and that Christ is thereby united corporally unto 
us. Yet saith not Cyril that this unity is only when we re- 

' Cyril, In Joan. lib. ix. cap. alt. ** Ita ego naturaliter presume quia 
** ex ipso natus, vos autem ex roe, et ego in vobis etiam naturaliter, ea 
** ratione qua homo factus sum.'' [1580.] 


ceive the sacrament, nor extendeth to all that receive the BOOK 
sacrament, but unto them that being renewed to a new life, ' 

be made partakers of the divine nature, which nature Cyrill 
himself, upon the sixth chapter of John, declareth to be life. 
But he speaketh not one word of the corporal presence of 
Christ in the forms of bread and wine, nor no more doth 
Hilary. And therefore I may well approve that I said, 
that the answer made unto Hilary will very well also serve 
for Cyrill. And yet neither of them both hath one word 
that serveth for your purpose, that Christ^s flesh and blood 
should be in the sacrament under the forms of bread and 

4 And where you say that Christ uniteth himself to us as 
man, when he giveth his body in the sacrament to such as 
worthily receive it, if you will speak as Cyrill and other old 
authors use to do, Christ did unite himself to us as man at 
his incarnation. And here again you ^ve evidence against 
your own issue, affirming our unity unto Christ no further 
than we receive the sacrament worthily. And then they 
that receive it unworthily, be not united corporally unto 
Christ, nor eat his flesh, nor drink his blood, which is the 
plain mind both of Hilary and also of Cyrill, and directly 
with the state of my fourth book, and against your answer 
to the same. 

5 And here you, pretending to declare again what is meant 
by this word ** corporal,^ do tell the negative, that there is 
no grossness meant thereby, but the affirmative, what is 
meant thereby, you declare not as you promised. But if 
you mean plainly, speak plainly, whether Christ's body 
being in the sacrament under the forms of bread and wine, 
have head, feet, arms, legs, back, and belly, eyes, ears, and 
mouth, distinct, and in due order and proportion : which if 
he lack, the simplest man or woman knoweth that it cannot 
be a perfect corporal man^s body, but rather an imaginative 
or phantastical body, as Mardon and Valentine taught it to 
be. Express here fully and plainly what manner of body 
you call this corporal body of Christ. 

6 And where you say that I allege Cyrill to deny in words 


BOOK the eating of a man, and to affirm the receiving in this sa- 
^^^' crament to be only by faith, and yet it shall appear by fur- 
ther discussion^ say you, that Cyril saith not so; if you 
had not rubbed shame out of your forehead, you would not 
have said that he saith not so, and be taken with so mani- 
fest an untruth. For although you, like a grammarian, ruffle 
in your cases, genders, numbers, and persons, and in matters 
of no learning trouble the reader to show yourself learned, 
corrupting ,the Greek, Latin, and English, to draw them to 
your purpose, yet shall you never prove that Cyril speaketh 
of any other eating of Christ, but by faith. 

And to make the matter plun, which it seemeth you yet 
understand not, I shall shortly rehearse, as well the argu- 

Nestoriiu. ment of Nestorius as the answer of Cyril. Nestorius the 
heretic said, that Christ was but a pure man, and not God, 
and that he had but a common body such as other men 
have, whereunto the Godhead was only assistant, as it is to 
other men. And to prove the same, he alleged Christ^s own 

John ▼). words, when he said, He thai; ecUeth my fleshy 4*c. and, He 
that eateih mCf and, As the living Father sent me. And 
forasmuch as Christ said, that he had flesh, and was eaten, 
and sent, and God cannot be eaten nor sent, said Nestorius, 
therefore concluded he that Christ was not God, but man, 
whose flesh might be eaten and sent : whose gross argumen- 
tation Cyril confuting saith, that by his rude reasoning of 
eating, he draweth men^s minds wickedly to fancy of the 
eating of man^s flesh, meaning of the eating thereof with tooth 
and mouth, and so to imagine carnally and grossly such 
things of Christ as be understand to be done with an only 
and pure faith. And as Nestorius made his argument of 
the eaUng of man^s flesh, even so did Cyril make his answer 
of the eating of the same, and not of the commixtion there- 
of. For unto what purpose should commixtion serve in 
that place, and whereunto should Christ^s body be com- 
mixed ? Or why should Cyril charge Nestorius with com- 
mixtion in Christ, seeing that he was charged with the clean 
contrary, as you say, that he separated the natures in Christ, 
and did not confound and commix them? And further- 


more, if Nestorius had made his argument of the eating, BOOK 
and Cyril had made his answer of the commixtion, they had 
foughten Andabatarum more^ as the proverb saith, like two 
blind men, that when the one striketh in one place, the other 
holdeth up his buckler to defend in another place. There- 
fore may all men judge, that have any judgment at all, how 
unjustly you judge and condemn that godly and excellent 
learned man, (Ecoiampadius, for this word iv6pwro<l>ayiav, 
which you say would be ipOptavofuyCavy which word in Greek 
I think was never read, nor hath in that place neither sense 
nor reason. And what an heady and intolerable arrogancy 
is this of you, of your own vain conjecturing, to alter the 
Greek text without any Greek copy to ground yourself 
upon, altering iv$pfaiTo<l>aylav into ivBpwnoiuyiaVy and dco- 
P€fi(uovvrai into dtc/Se/Satcar, contrary to the translations of 
(Ecoiampadius and Musculus, not whispered in comers, as 
you with your railing words would defame the matter, but 
published abroad to the world. And at the end you con- 
clude altogether with interrogation, contrary to the two trans- 
lations which yourself do allege, being printed the one at 
Basil, and the other at Colen. And you using such a license 
to alter and change all things at your pleasure, are offended 
with (Ecoiampadius for changing of any case, gender, num- 
ber, verb, or participle, yea for one tittle or prick of interro- 
gation ; which liberty hath ever been suffered in all inter- 
preters, so they went not from the true sense. But you can 
spy a little mote in another man^s eye, that cannot see a 
great block in your own. 

Nevertheless if I should divine without the book, as you 
do, I would rather think that biafitfiaiovvTai should be dui- 
fiffiaiavTOi^y for such small errors in one letter be easily com- 
mitted in the printing, and then concluding with an interro- 
gation, as you would have it, the sense of the Greek should 
be this in English. ^* Doth not Nestorius affirm, that he 

1^ rin the original edition of ISbif^ttt^tfimifrm is read here, and wm(i€r§9y 
lirtxi*c^9, iwtmu^ity are read below, p. 268. The two last words were ob- 
viously errors of the press, and were corrected us such in the edition of 
1.^80. Tlie same seems also to have been the cuse with the two former, 
and they have now been altered accordingly.] 


BOOK *^ who was seen and sent^ is another son and Christ beside 
'"• " the Word, which is God of God ? Doth not he say, that 
*< our sacrament is the eating of a man, unreverently leading 
^^ faithful minds unto vain and gross imaginations, and 
<« going about to compass with man^s phantasy those things 
*^ which be received only with a pure and simple faith?'" 
Where Cyril in these words reproveth Nestorius, in that he 
said that our sacrament is the eating of a man, doth not 
he himself affirm the contrary, that our sacrament is not the 
eating of a man ? as I said in my book. For else why should 
he reprehend Nestorius for saying the contrary ? And doth 
not Cyril say also, that this sacrament is received only with 
a pure and simple faith ? And yet you find fault with me, 
because I say that Cyril affirmeth the receiving in this sa^ 
crament to be only by faith ; which your saying, being so 
manifest contrary to CyriPs words, I refer me to the judg- 
ment of all indifferent readers what trust is to be given to 
you in this matter. And as for (Ecolampadius, if the printer, 
in the stead of irapurrhv^ made iroptorttr, and for ivixeCfHnnf ^ 
printed imx^ip^v^ which may soon chance in printing, then 
may fivar/ipiov be the nominative case, notwithstanding all 
your vehement inveighing and vain babbling against (Eco- 

Yet after your scurrility and railing against CEcolampa- 
dius, you temper yourself somewhat, sa3ang that in such as 7 
receive the sacrament worthily, Christ dwelleth corporally, 
as Cyrill saith, and naturally and carnally, as Hilaiy saith. 
This is the third evidence which you give against yourself^ 
signifying that Christ is not corporally in them that receive 
not the sacrament worthily. And here you begin to smack 
of some true understanding, when you say, that Christ 
dwelleth in them that worthily recdve the sacrament, so 
that you would add thereto, that he dwelleth not only in 
them when they receive the sacrament, but whensoever by 
a lively faith they spiritually eat his flesh and drink his 

And where you say, that by the variety of my doctrine its 

[1 See note, p. 267.] 


appeareth that I am not yet determiDed whither to go, you BOOK 
keep still your old conditions, and show yourself to be al- ' 

ways one man in this point, to charge other men with your 
own faults. For whereas my doctrine is thoroughly uni- 
form and constant, yours is so variable and uncertain, that 
you agree with no man, nor with yourself neither, as I in- 
tend by God'^s grace particularly to set out in the end of my 

And in these two authors, Hilary and Cyrill, you vary 
three times from your answer unto my fourth book. For 
here you say no more but that Christ is corporally in them 
that receive the sacrament worthily, and in the answer to my 
fourth book you say, that he is corporally in all them that 
receive the sacrament, whether it be worthily or unworthily. 
Now foUoweth thus in my book. 

[See vol. ii. p. 41S. «< And here^— — ** mouth and 
« teeth.''] 


As for Basill, Gregory Nyssen, and Gregory Nazianzen, this Buriliot. 
author saith they speak little of this matter, and indeed they speak ^''«8<>'* 
not so much as other do, but that they speak is not discrepant, Gregor. 
oor coDtrarieth not that other afore them had written. For in Nazlanie- 


■ the old Church the truth of this mystery was never impugned MessaUani 
openly and directly that we read of before Berengarius, 500 years ^^'^^^' 
past, and secretly by one Bertrame before that, but only by the 
Messalians, who said the corporal eating did neither good nor 
hurt. The Anthropomorphites also, who said the virtue of the mys- 
tical benediction endured not to the next day, of whom Cyrill speak- Aotiiropo- 
eth, and the Nestorians by consecution of their learning, that di- ^^^'PhitK-^ 
▼ided Christ*s flesh from the deity. 

s And where this author would have taken for a true suppo- 
sal that Basill, Gregorie Nazianzene, and Nyssene, should take 
the sacrament to be figurative only, that is to be denied. And 
likewise it is not true that this author teacheth, that of the^o^J* 
figtire may be spoken the same thing that may be s|x>ken of 

3 the thing itself. And that I will declare thus. Of the thing 
itself, that is, Christ's very body being present indeed, it may 
be said. Adore it, worship it there, which may not be said of 


BOOK the figure. It may be said of the very thing being present 4 
^^^' there, that it is a high miracle to be there, it is above nature 
to be there, it is an high secret mystery to be there. But none 
of these speeches can be conveniently said of the only figure, that 
it is such a miracle, so above nature, so high a mystery, to be a 
figure. And therefore it is no true doctrine to teach, that we may 5 
say the same of the figure that may be said of the thing itself. 
And where this author speaketh of spiritual eating and corporal 
eating, he remaineth in his ignorance what the word ** corporal** 
meaneth, which I have opened in discussing of his answer to Cyril. 
Faith is required in him that shall eat spiritually, and the corporal 
eating institute in Christ's supper "* requireth the reverent use of 6 
man*s mouth to receive our Lord's meat, and drink his own very 
flesh and blood, by his omnipotency prepared in that supper, which 
not spiritually, that is to say, not innocently (as St. Augustin in 
one place expoundeth spiritually^) received, bringeth judgment and 
condemnation according to St. Paul's words. 


Where you say that in the old Church the truth of this i 
mystery was never impugned openly, you say herein very 
truly, for the truth which I have set forth was openly re- 
ceived and taught of all that were catholic, without contradic- 
tion, until the papists devised a contrary doctrine. And I 
say further, that the untruth which you teach was not at 
that time improved of no man, neither openly nor privily ; 
for how could your doctrine be impugned in the old Church, 
which was then neither taught nor known ? 
Bertrame. And as concerning Bertrame he did not write secretly, for 
he was required by King Charles to write in this matter, and 
wrote therein as the doctrine of the Church was at that time, 
or else some roan would have reprehended him, which never 
none did before you, but make mention of his works unto 

Messaliani. his great praise and commendation. And the Massalians^' 

[1580.] ^ 

"* Of corporal manducation, lege Roffeum, et (Ecolampadium, lib. iii. 
cap. 13. [1580.] 

" August. Jft Joan, tract, xxvi. 

<* De iis habetur in Hist. IVipL lib. vii. et xi. et in Theodoret. lib. iv. 
cap. 11. [1580.] 


were not reproved for saying, that corporal eating doth nei- BOOK 
ther good nor hurt, neither of Epiphanius, nor of St. Augus- ^"' 
tine, nor Theodoret, nor of any other ancient author that I 
have read. Mary that the sacraments do neither good nor 
hurt, and namely baptism, is laid unto the Massalians^ 
charge, and yet the corporal receiving without the spiritual 
availeth nothing, but rather hurteth very much, as appeared 
in Judas and Simon Magus. And as for the three heresies 
of the Massalians, Anthropomorphites, and Nestorians, T 
allow none of them, although you report them otherwise than 
either Epiphanius or St. Augustine doth. 

a And where you say that I would have taken for a suppo- 
sal, that Basill, Nazianzene, and Nyssene, should take the 
sacrament to be figurative only, still you charge me untruly 
with that I neither say nor think. For I knowledge, as all 
good Christian men do, that Almighty God worketh effect- 
ually with his sacraments. 

3 And where you report me to say another untruth, that of 
a figure may be spoken the same thing that may be spoken 
of the thing itself; that I say true therein, witnesseth plainly 
St. Augustine and Cyprian. And yet I speak not univer- 
sally, nor these examples that you bring, make any thing 
against my sayings. For the first example may be said (^ 
the figure, if Doctor Smith say true. And because you two Smyth, 
write both against my book, and agree so evil one with an- 
other, as it is hard for untrue sayers to agree in one tale, 
therefore in this point I commit you together, to see which 

4 of you is most valiant champion. And as for your other 
three examples, it is not true of the thing itself that Christ^s 
body is present in the sacrament by miracle or above nature, 
although by miracle and above nature he is in the ministra- 
tion of his holy Supper, among them that godly be fed 
thereat. And thus be your frivolous cavillations answered. 

5 And where you say that I am ignorant what this word Corporal. 
*^ oorporar meaneth, surely then I have a very gross wit, 
that am ignorant in that thing which every ploughman 
knoweth. But you make so fine a construction of this word 
** oorporal^'^ that neither can you tell what you mean your- 


BOOK self, nor no man can understand you, as I have opened be- 
^^^' fore in the discussing of CyriFs mind. 

And as for the reverent use of man^s mouth in the Lord'^s 6 
holy Supper, the bread and wine outwardly must be reve- 
rently received with the mouth, because of the things there- 
by represented, which by faith be rec^ved inwardly in our 
hearts and minds, and not eaten with our mouths, as you 
untruly allege St. Paul to say ; whose words be of the eating 
of the sacramental bread and not of the body of Christ. 
Now followeth next mine answer to Eusebius Emissenus, 
who is as it were your chief trust and shot anchor. 

[See vol. ii. p. 412 — 418. " Likewise Eusebius"" 

" transubstantiation.""] 


EmiMen. This author saith that Emissen b shortly answered unto, and i 
so is he, if a man care not what he saith, as Hilarie was answered 
and Cyrill. But else, there cannot short or long answer confound 
the true plain testimony of Emissen for the common true faith 
of the Church in the sacrament; which Emissen hath this sentence: > 
that " the invbible priest, by the secret power with his word 
'* tunieth the visible creatures into the substance of his body and 
blood, saying thus : This is my body ; and again repeating the 
same sanctification. This is my blood. Wherefore as at the beck 
*' of him commanding, the height of heavens, the deepness of the 
floods, and largeness of lands were founded of nothing, by like 
power in spiritual sacraments, where virtue commandeth^ the 
" effect of the truth servetb.*' These be Emissen*s words, declar- 
ing his faith plainly of the sacrament, in such terms as cannot be 
wrested or writhed, who speaketh of a turning and conversion of 
the visible creatures iuto the substance of Christ's body and blood : 
he saith not into the sacrament of Christ*8 body and bloody nor 
figure of Christ's body and blood, whereby he should mean only 
sacramental conversion, as this author would have it ; but he saitb^ 
into the substance of Christ's body and blood to be in the sacra- 
ment. For the words, " substance*' and " truth*' be of ones 
strength, and show a difference firom a figure, wherein the truth 
is not in deed present, but signified to be absent. And because 
it is a work supernatural and a great miracle, this Emissen re- 




presseth man's carnal reason, and succoureth the weak faith, with BOOR 
remembrance of like power of God in the creation of the world, ^^^' 
which were brought forth out of time hj Emissen, if Christ's 

4 body were not in substance present, as Emissen*s words be, but 
in figure only, as this author teacheth. 

5 And where this author coupleth together the two sacraments. Only, 
of baptism, and of the body and blood of Christ, as though there 
were no difference in the presence of Christ in either, he putteth 
himself in danger to be reproved of malice or ignorance. For 
although these mysteries be both great, and man's regeneration in 
baptbm is also a mystery and the secret work of God, and hath a 
great marvel in that eflect, yet it diflereth from the mystery of the 
saciament, touching the manner of Christ's presence, and the 
working of the effect also. For in baptism our union with Christ 

6 is wrought without the real presence of Christ's humanity, only in 
the virtue and efllect of Christ's blood, the whole Trinity there 
working as author, in whose name the sacrament is expressly 
ministered, where our soul is regenerate and made spiritual, but 
not our body in deed, but in hope only, that for the Spirit of Christ 
dwelling in us, our mortal bodies shall be resuscitate, and as we 
have in baptism been buried with Christ, so we be assured to be 
partakers of his resurrection. And so in this sacrament we be 
unite to Christ's manhood by this Divinity. But in the sacra- 
ment of Christ's body and blood, we be in nature united to Christ 
as man, and by his glorified flesh made partakers also of his Di- 
vinity ; which mystical union representeth unto us the high estate 
of our glorification, wherein body and soul shall in the general re- 
surrection, by a marvellous regeneration of the body, be made 
both spiritual, the special pledge whereof we receive in this sacra- 
ment; and therefore it is the sacrament, as Hilary saith, of perfect 
unity. And albeit the soul of man be more precious than the 
body, and the nature of the Godhead in Christ more excellent 
than the nature of man in him glorified, and in baptism man*$ 
soul is regenerate in the virtue and effect of Christ's passion and 
blood, Christ's Godhead present there without the real presence 
of his humanity, although for these respects the excellency of bap- 
tism is great ; yet because the mystery of the sacrament of the 
altar, where Christ is present both man and God, in the effectual 
unity that is wrought between our bodies, our souls, and Christ's 
in the use of this sacrament, signifieth the perfect redemption of 



BOOK ^"^ bodies in the general resurrection, which shall be the end and 

III. consummation of all our felicity ; this sacrament of perfect unity 

is the mystery of our perfect estate, when body and soul shall be 

all spiritual, and hath so a degree of excellency, for the dignity 

that is esteemed in every end and perfection ; wherefore the word 

Spiritual. *^ spiritual" is a necessary word in this sacrament, to call it a spi- 

Spiritual ^tual food, as it is in deed, for it is to work in our bodies a spi- 
maoner. , * 

Spiritually, ritual effect, not only in our souls, and Christs body and flesh is 

[15S0.] ^ spiritual body and flesh, and yet a true body and very flesh. 
And it is present in this sacrament after a spiritual manner, 
granted and taught of all true teachers, which we should receive 
also spiritually, which is by having Christ before spiritually in us 
to receive it so worthily. Wherefore, like as in the invisible sub- 
stance of the sacrament there is nothing carnal but all spiritual^ 
taking the word carnal as it signifieth grossly in man's carnal 
Judgment : so where the receivers of tliat food bring carnal lusts 
or desires, carnal &ncies or imaginations with them, they receive 
the same precious food unworthily to their judgment and condem* 
nation. For they judge not truly after the simplicity of a true 
Christian faith, of the very presence of Christ*s body. And this 
sufficeth to wipe out that this author hath spoken of Eroissen 
against the truth. 


I have so plainly answered unto Emissene in my former i 
book, partly in this place^ and partly in the second part of 
my book^ that he that readeth over those two places shall 
see most clearly, that you have spent a great many of words 
here in vain, and need no further answer at all. And I had 
then such a care what I sidd, that I said nothing but ac- 
cording to Emissenus^ own mind^ and which I proved by 
his own words. But if you find but one word that in speech 
soundeth to your purpose, you stick to that word tooth and 
nail, caring nothing what the author^s meaning is. 
A sleigbt And here is one great token of sleight and untruth to be 2 
noted in you, that you write diligently every word, so long 
as they seem to make with you. And when you come to the 
very place where Emissene declareth the meaning of his 
words, there you leave all the rest out of your book^ which 
cannot be without a great untruth and fraud, to deceive the 


simple reader. For when you have recited these words of BOOK 

Emissen, that '^ the invisible priest by the secret power with 1- 

** his word tumeth the visible creatures into the substance of 
^^ his body and blood,^ and so further as serveth to your 
affection^ when you come even to the very place, where 
Emissen declareth these words, there you leave and cut off 
your writing. 

But because the reader may know what you have cut off, 
and thereby know Emissene^s meaning, I shall here rehearse 
Emissene^s words, which you have left out. ^* If thou wilt 
*' know,^ saith Emissene, ^^ how it ought not to seem to thee 
a thing new and impossible, that earthly and corruptible 
things be turned into the substance of Christ, look upon 
thyself which art made new in baptism. When thou wast 
*^ far from life, and banished as a stranger from mercy and 
*' from the way of salvation, and inwardly wast dead, yet 
*^ suddenly thou beganst another new life in Christ, and wast 
'^ made new by wholesome mysteries, and wast turned into 
^* the body of the Church, not by seeing, but by believing, 
*^ and of the child of damnation, by a secret pureness thou 
«< wast made the son of Grod. Thou visibly didst remain in 
^* the same measure that thou hadst before, but invisibly 
thou wast made greater, without any increase of thy body. 
Thou wast the selfsame person, and yet by increase of 
faith thou wast made another man. Outwardly nothing 
^' was added, but all the change was inwardly. And so was 
'* man made the son of Christ, and Christ formed in the 
** mind of man. Therefore as thou, putting away thy for- 
mer vileness, didst receive a new dignity, not feeling any 
change in thy body, and as the curing of thy disease, the 
putting away of thine infection, the wiping away of thy 
Blthiness, be not seen with thine eyes^ but believed in thy 
'* mind : so likewise when thou dost go up to the reverend 
altar to feed upon spiritual meat, in thy faith look upon 
the body and blood of him that is thy God, honour him, 
'^ touch him with thy mind, take him in the hand of thy 
^* heart, and chiefly drink him with the draught of thy in- 
<< ward man.^ These be Emissen's own words. Upon 




BOOK which words I gather his meaning in his former words by 
jriu alleged. For where you bring in these words, that 

^' Christ by his secret power with his word tumeth the visi- 
^* ble creatures into the substance of his body and blood,^ 
straightways in these words by me now rehearsed, he showeth 
what manner of turning that is, and after what manner the 
earthly and corruptible things be turned into the substance 
of Christ, even so (saith he) as it is in baptism, wherein is 
no transubstantiation. So that I gather his meaning of his 
own plain words, and you gather his meaning of your own 
imagination, devising such phantastical things, as ndther 
Emissen saith, nor yet be catholic. 

TniA. And this word *^ truth^ you have put unto the words of 3 

Emissen of your own head, which is no true dealing. For 
so you may prove what you list, if you may add to the au- 
thors what words you please. And yet if Emissen had used 
both the words, " substance^ and " truth,^ what should that 
help you ? for Christ is in substance and truth present in 
baptism as well as he is in the Lord^s Supper, and yet is he 
not there carnally, corporally, and naturally. 

^^7- I will pass over here to aggravate the matter, how untruly 4 

you add to my words diis word ^* only*^ in an hundred 
places, where I say not so : what true and sincere dealing 
this is, let all men judge. 

Now as concerning my coupling together of the two sa- 5 
craments, of baptism, and of the body and blood of Christ ; 
Emissene himself coupleth them both together in this place, 
and saith, that the one is like the other, without putting 
any difference, even as I truly recited him. So that there 
appeareth neither malice nor ignorance in me ; but in you, 
adding at your pleasure such things as Emissene saith not^ 
to deceive the simple reader, and adding such your own 
inventions, as be neither true nor catholic, appeareth much 
shift and craft joined with untruth and infidelity. 

Errors. For what Christian man would say, as you do, that 6 

Christ is not in deed (which you call really) in bapdsm ? 
Or that we be not regenerated both body and soul, as well 
in baptism, as in the sacrament of the body and blood of 


Christ? Or that in bapdsm we be not united to Christ's BOOK 


Divinity by his manhood ? Or that baptism representeth ' 

not to us the high state of our glorification and the per- 
fect redemption of our bodies in the general resurrec- 
tion ? In which things you make difference between bap- 
tbm and the sacrament, as you call it, of the altar. Or 
what man that were learned in God^s word would affirm, 
that in the general resurrection our bodies and souls shall 
be all spiritual? I know that St. Paul saith, that in the Spiritaal. 
resurrection our bodies shall be spiritual, meaning in the 
respect of such vileness, filthiness, sin, and corruption, as 
we be subject unto in this miserable world. Yet he saith 
not that our bodies shall be all spiritual. For notwith* 
standing such spiritualness as St. Paul speaketh of, we 
shall have all such substantial parts and members^ as per- 
tain to a very natural man^s body. So that in this part our 
bodies shall be carnal, corporal, real, and natural bodies^ 
lacking nothing that belongeth to perfect men^s bodies. 
And in that respect is the body of Christ also carnal, and 
not spiritual. And yet we bring none other carnal imagi- 
nations of ChrisOs body, nor mean none other, but that 
Christ^s body is carnal in this respect; that it hath the 
same flesh and natural substance which was bom of the 
Virgin Mary, and wherein he suffered and rose again, and 
now sitteth at the right hand of his Father in glory ; and 
that the same his natural body now glorified hath all the 
natural parts of a man^s body in order, proportion, and 
place distinct, as our bodies shall be in these respects carnal 
after our resurrection. Which manner of carnalness and 
diversity of parts and members^ if you take away now from 
Christ in heaven, and from us after our resurrection, you 
make Christ now to have no true man^s body, but a phan- 
tastical body^ as Marcion and Valentine did : and as con- 
cerning our bodies, you run into the error of Origen, 
which fancied and imagined, that at the resurrection all 
things should be so spiritual, that women should be turned 
into men, and bodies into souls. 

And yet it is to be noted by the way, that in your 



BOOK answer here to Emissene^ you make spiritually, and a spi- 
^^^* ritual manner all one. 

Now foUoweth mine answer to St. Ambrose in this wise. 

[See vol. ii. p. 418, 414. ** And now I will come''— - 
*' corporal presence."] 


Ambrosius. As touching St. Ambrose, this author taketh a great enterprise i 
to wrestle with him, whose plain and erident words must needs 
be a rule to try his other words by, if any might be writhed. 
What can be more pisdnly spoken than St. Ambrose speaketh, 
when he saith these words : " It is bread before consecration, but a 
CoDsecra- " after it is Christ's body." By the word ** consecration,** is sig- 
fiTso 1 i^i^6^» ^ 1^ IS here placed, God*s omnipotent work. Wherefore 
in this place, it comprehendeth as much as Emissen said in these 
words, '* he conyerteth by the secret power of his word :'* God is the 
worker, and so consecration signi6eth the whole action of his 
omnipotency in working the substance of this high mystery, and 3 
therefore the definition of the word " consecration/* as it is ge- 
nerally taken, cannot be a rule to the understanding of it in this 
high mystery, where it is used to express a singular work^ as the 
circumstance of St. Ambrose writing doth declare. For as Philip 
tlion!"^" Melancthon writeth to (Ecolampadius, " St. Ambrose would never 4 
*' have travailed to accumulate so many miracles as he doth, speak- 
ing of this matter to declare God's omnipotency, and he had not 
thought the nature of bread to be changed in this mystery.*' 
These be Melancthon*s very words. 5 

Now to answer the question as it were at the word change, this 
author shall come with a sacramental change, which is a device in 
Sacramen- terms to blind the rude reader. St. Ambrose doth express plainly 
rAsoH ^ what the change is, when he writeth the words before rehearsed. 
" It is bread -before the consecration, but after it is the body of 
" Christ." Can a change be more plainly declared ? The nearer way 6 
for this author had been to have joined Ambrose with Clement, 
and called him feigned by the papists, rather than after the eflfect 
of consecration so opened by St. Ambrose himself, to travail to 
prove what it may signify, if it were in another matter; and 
then to admonish the reader how the bread and wine have no 
holiness ; which form of speech not understanded of the people* 7 



engaidereth some scruple that needeth not, being no sound form BOOK 
of doctrine; for St. Paul speaketh and teacheth thus> that the ^^^' 
creatures be sanctified by the word of God and prayer : and St. i Tim. ir, 

8 Augustine ^ writeth of sanctified bread to be given to them that be 
catechised before they be baptized. And this author himself ex- 
poundetli St. Cyprian in the thirty-fifih leaf' of his book, how 
the Divinity is poured into the bread sacramentally, which is a 
strange phrase not expressing there Cyprian*8 mind, and far db- 
crepant from the doctrine here. 

And in another place this author saith^ that as hot and burning 

9 iron is iron still, and yet hath the force of fire ; so the bread and 
wine be turned into the virtue of Christ's flesh and blood ; by 
which similitude bread may conceive virtue, as iron conceiveth 
fire } and then as we call iron burning and fiery, so we may call 

lo bread virtuous and holy, unless the author would again resemble 
bread to a whetstone, that may make sharp and have no sharpness 
in it at all. Which matter I declare thus to show, that as this 
author dissenteth from truth in other, so he dissenteth from that 
he ttttereth for truth himself, and walketh in a maze, impugning 
the very truth in this sacrament, and would have that taken for a 
catholic doctrine that is not one and the same doctrine through 
his whole book, so fiir off is it from the whole of Christian teach* 
ing. But now let us consider what speeches of St. Ambrose this 
author bringeth forth, wherewith to alter the truth of the very 
plain proper speech of St. Ambrose' saying : '^ It is bread before 
" the consecration, but after it is Christ's body." 

St. Ambrose, as this author saith in another place, saith thus : 
'* Before the benediction of the heavenly words, it is called ano- 
** ther kind of thing ; but after the consecration is signified the 
'^ body and blood of Christ.** And another speech thus : " Before 
** the consecration it is called another thing, but after the conse- 
" cration it is named the blood of Christ.** And yet a third 
speech, where the word " call*' is used before and after both, as 
thou, reader, mayest see in this author's book in the eighty-third 
leaf*. Now, good reader, was there ever man so overseen as this 
author is, who seeth not St. Ambrose in these three latter 
speeches to speak as plainly as in the first. For in the last speech 

4 Be PeccaL Merit, et Remm, lib. ii. cap. 26. ^ [See vol. ii. p. 340.] 
* [See vol. ii. p. 414.] 

T 4 


BOOK Su Ambrose saith, it is called bread before the consecration, and 
' called the body of Christ after the consecration. And I would 

demand of this author, doth not this word '* call*' signify the 
truth, that is, bread in deed before the consecration ^ which if it 
be so, why shall not the same word '* call" signify also the very 
truth, added to the words of the body of Christ after the conse- 
cration ? And likewise when he saith, speaking of the body of 
Christ, the word '' signified'* or " named," which is as much as 
" call/' the body of Christ is signified there, for Christ said^ 
This is my body, &c. using the outward signs of the visible crea- 
tures to signify the body and blood present, and not absent. Was 
not Christ the true Son of God, because the angel said, he shall 
be called the Son of God ? But in these places of St. Ambrose, 
to express plainly what he meant by ** calling," he putteth that 
word ** call" to the bread before the consecration, as well as to 
the body of Christ after the consecration^ thereby to declare how 
in his understanding the word ''call" signifieth as much truth in 
the thing whereunto it is added after consecration as before, and 
therefore as it is by St. Ambrose called bread before consecration, 
signifying it was so in deed, so it is called, signified, or named, 
(which three thus placed be all one in efSdct,) the body of Christ 
after the consecration, and is so in deed, agreeable to the plain 
speech of St. Ambrose, where he saith it is bread before consecra- 
tion, and it is the body of Christ after consecration. As touching 
the spirituality of the meat of Christ's body, I have spoken before : 
but where this author addeth it requireth no corporal presence, 
he speaketh in his dream, being oppressed with sleep of igno- 
rance, and cannot tell what " corporal" meaneth, as I have opened 
before by the authority of Cyrill. Now let us see what this au- 1 1 
thor sayeth to Chrysostome. 


It is not I that wrestle with St. Ambrose, but you, who i 

take great jmn to wrest his words clean contrary to his 

intent and meaning. But where you ask this question, what 

can be more plain than these words of St. Ambrose, *^ It a 

Whether « is bread before consecration, and after it is Christ's body:'*' 

CbriBt's these words of St. Ambrose be not fully so plain as you 

^^7* pretend, but clean contrary. For what can be spoken 

either more unplain or untrue, than to say of bread after 


ooDsecration, that it is the body of Christ, unless the same BOOK 
be understand in a figurative speech ? For although Christy's '^^' 
body, as you say, be there after consecration, yet the bread 
is not his body, nor his body is not made of it by your 
confesnon. And therefore the saying of St. Ambrose, that 
it is Christ^s body, cannot be true in plain speech. And 
therefore St. Ambrose in the same place, where he calleth 
it the body and blood of Christ, he saith it is a figure of 
his body and blood. For these be his words ; '^ Quod est 
*^ figura corporis et sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi.^ 

3 And as for the word *^ consecration,^ I have declared the 
signification thereof, according to the mind of the old au- 
thors, as I will justify. 

4 And for the writing of Melancthon to CEcolampadius, 
you remain still in your old error, taking Myconius for 
(Ecolampadius. And yet the change of bread and wineAiacra- 

5 in this sacrament, which Melancthon speaketh of, is a 8a-^|^^ 
cramental change, as the nature of a sacrament requireth, 
agnifying how wonderfully Almighty Grod by his omnipo- 
tency worketh in us his lively members, and not in the 
dead creatures of bread and wine. And the change is in 

the use, and not in the elements kept and reserved, wherein 
is not the perfection of a sacrament. Therefore as water in 
the font or vessel hath not the reason and nature of a sa- 
crament, but when it is put to the use of christening, and 
then it is changed into the proper nature and kind of a sacra- 
ment, to signify the wonderful change which Almighty Grod 
by his omnipotency worketh really in them that be bap- 
tized therewith, such is the change of the bread and wine 
in the Lord^s Supper. And therefore the bread is called 
Christ'*s body after consecration, as St. Ambrose saith, and 
yet it is not so really, but sacramentally. For it is nether 
Christ^s mystical body, for that is the congregation of the 
faithful dispersed abroad in the world ; nor his natural body, 
for that is in heaven ; but it is the sacrament both of his 
true natural body, and also of his mystical body, and for 
that consideration hath the name of his body, as a sacra- 


BOOK ment or sign may bear the name of the very thing that is 
^^^' fflgnified and represented thereby. 

And as for the foresaid books entitled to St. Ambrose, 6 
if I joined Ambrose with Clement, and should say that the 
said books entitled in the name of St. Ambrose De Sacra^ 
mentiSf and De Mysteriis Iniiiandia, were none of his, I 
should say but as I think, and as they do think that be 
men of most excellent learning and judgment, as I de- 
clared in my second book, which speaketh of tnmsubstan- 
tiation. And so doth judge not only Erasmus, but also 
Melancthon, whom you allege for authority when he 
maketh for your purpose, suspecteth the same. And yet I 
plainly deny not these books to be his for your pleasure to 
give you as much advantage as you can ask^ and yet it 
availeth you nothing at all. 

But here I cannot pass over, that you be ofPended, be- 7 
Holybread. cause I say, that bread and wine be called holy when 
they be put to an holy use, not that they have any holi- 
ness in them, or be partakers of any holiness or godli- 
ness. I would fain leam of Smith and you, when the 
bread and wine be holy. For before they be hallowed or 
consecrated, they be not holy by your teaching, but be 
common baker^s bread, and wine of the tavern. And after 
the consecration, there is neither bread nor wine, as you 
teach. At what time then should the bread and wine be 
holy ? But the creatures of bread and wine be much bound 
unto you, and can no less do than take you for their saviour. 
For if you can make them holy and godly, then shall you 
glorify them, and so bring them to eternal bliss. And then 
may you as well save the true labouring bullocks and inno- 
cent sheep and lambs, and so understand the Prophet, 
Psal. zzzv. Homines etjwnenta salvabis Domne. 

But to admonish the reader, say you, how the bread and 
wine have no holiness : this form of speech not understand 
of the people, engendereth some scruple that needeth not. 
By which your saying I cannot tell what the people may 
understand, but that you have a great scruple that you 


have lost your holy bread. And yet St Paul speaketh not BOOK 
of your holy bread, as you imagine, being utterly ignorant, ^^^- 
as appeareth, in the Scripture, but he speaketh generally 
of all manner of meats which Christian people receive with 
thanksgiving unto Grod, whether it be bread, wine, cft water, 
fish, flesh, white meat, herbs, or what manner of meat and 
drink so ever it be. 

And the sanctified bread, which St. Augustine writeth* 
to be given to them that be catechised, was not holy in 

8 itself, but was called holy for the use and signification. 

And I express St. Cyprian^s mind truly, and not a whit Cyprianui. 
discrepant from my doctrine here, when I say, that the 
Divinity may be said to be poured or put sacramentally 
into the bread, as the Spirit of God is said to be in the 
water of baptism, when it is truly ministered, or in his 
word, when it is sincerely preached with the Holy Spirit 
working mightily in the hearts of the hearers. And yet the 
water in itself is but a visible element, nor the preacher's 
word of itself is but a sound in the air, which as soon as it 
is heard, vamsheth away, and hath in itself no holiness at 
all, although for the use and ministry thereof, it may be 
called holy. And so likewise may be said of the sacraments, 
which, as St. Augustine saith, be as it were God^s visible word* 

9 And whereas you rehearse out of my words in another Holy bread, 
place, that as hot and burning iron is iron still, and yet 

hath the force of fire, so the bread and wine be turned into 
the virtue of Christ'^s flesh and blood : you neither report 
my words truly, nor understand them truly. For I declare 
in my book virtue to be in them that godly receive bread 
and wine, and not in the bread and wine. And I take 
virtue there to signify might and strength, or force, as I 
name it, which in the Greek is called HipofuSf after which 
sense we say that there is virtue in herbs, in words, and in 
stones, and not to signify virtue in holiness, which in Greek 
b called apcri^, whereof a person is called virtuous, whose 
faith and ocmversation is godly. But you sophistically and 
fraudulently do of purpose abuse the word ^* virtue,^ to an- 
* Angoftt. De Peceatorum Meritit et Remm. lib. ii. cap. S6. 


BOOK Other signification than I meant, to approve by my words 
_ilL_your own vain error, that bread should be virtuous and 

holy, making in your argument vlJuHox or crafit, called 
equivocation. For where my meaning is, that the death of 
Christ and the e£Pusion of his blood have effect and strength 
in them that truly recrive the sacrament of his flesh and 
blood, you turn the matter quite, as though I should say, 
that the bread were godly and virtuous, which is a very 
frantic and ungodly opinion, and nothing pertaining to mine 
application of the similitude of iron. But this is the mother 
of many errors, both in interpretation of Scriptures, and also 
in understanding of old ancient writers, when the mind and 
intent of him that maketh a ^ilitude is not considered ; but 
the similitude is applied unto other matters than the meaning 
was : which fault may be justly noted in you here, when 
you reason by the similitude of hot burning iron, that bread 
may conceive such virtue as it may be called virtuous and 
holy. For my only purpose was by that similitude to teach, 
that iron, remaining in his proper nature and substance, by 
conceiving of fire, may work another thing than is the nature 
of iron* And so likewise bread remaining in his proper 
nature and substance in the ministration of the sacrament 
hath another use than to feed the body. For it is a me- 
morial of Christ^s death, that by exerdse of our faith our 
souls may receive the more heavenly food. But this is a 
strange manner of speech, which neither Scripture nor ap- 
proved author ever used before you, to call the sacramental '^ 
bread virtuous as you do. But into such absurdities men 
do commonly fall, when they will of purpose impugn the 
evident truth. 

But was there ever any man so overseen, say you, as this 
author is, who seeth not St. Ambrose in these three latter 
'< Bread is speeches to speak as plainly as in the first ? Was there ever 
a'^iaia' *' ^^^ ™*"* ^ destitute of reason, say I, but that he under- 
speech. standeth this, that when bread is called bread, it is called 
ChrUt'8 ^ ^y ^^ proper name as it is in deed : and when bread is 
body/' 18 a called the body of Christ, it taketh the name of a thing 
speech. which it is not in deed, but is so called by a figurative speech. 


And calling, say you, in the words of Christ, signifieth BOOK 
making, which if it ngnified when bread is called bread, ^"' 
then were calling of bread a making of bread : and thus is 
answered your demand, why this word ^^ cair in the one 
ngnifieth the truth, and in the other not, because that the 
one is a plain speech, and the other a figurative. For else 
by your reasoning out of reason, when the cup which Christ 
used in his last supper was called a cup, and when it was 
called Christ^s blood, all was one calling, and was of like 
truth without figure : so that the cup was Chrises blood in 
deed. And likewise when the stone that flowed out water Nam. xx. 
was called a stone, and when it was called Christ ; and the 
ark also when it was called the ark, and when it was called i Cor. x. 
God : all these must be one speech and of like truth, if it i Reg. i7. 
be true which you here say. But as the ark was an ark, 
the stone a stone, and bread very bread, and the cup a cup, 
plainly without figurative speech ; so when they be called 
God, Christ, the body and blood of Christ, this cannot be 
a like calling, but must needs be understand by a figurative 
speech. For as Christ in the Scripture is called a lamb for John i. 
his innocency and meekness, a lion for his might and power, ^^^ ^^ 
a door and way whereby we enter into his Father^s house. Gen. xfix. 
wheat and corn for the property of dying before they rise j^'^]^ 
up and bring increase, so is he called bread, and bread is*^^^'' '^i- 
called his body, and wine his blood, for the property of 
feeding and nourishing. So that these and all like speeches, 
whereas one substance is called by the name of another 
substance diverse and distinct in nature, must needs be un- 
derstand figuratively by some nmilitude or propriety of one 
substance unto another, and can in no wise be understand 
properly and plainly without a figure. And therefore, when 
Christ is called the Son of God, or bread is called bread, it 
is a most plain and proper speech, but when Christ is called 
bread, or bread is called Christ, these can in no wise be 
formal and proper speeches, the substances and natures of 
them being so diverse, but must needs have an understand- 
ing in figure, signification, or smilitude, (as the very nature 
of all sacraments require,) as all the old writers do plainly 


BOOK teach. And therefore the bread after consecratioD is not 
^^^' called Christ's body because it is so in deed^ for then it 
were no figurative speech, as all the old authors say it is. 
Corporal. And as for this word ^^ corporal/' you openly confessed 1 1 
your own ignorance in the open audience of all the people 
at Lambheth, when I asked you what corporal body Christ 
hath in the sacrament, and whether he had distinction of 
members or no, your answer was in effect that you could 
not tell. And yet was that a wiser sa}ang than you spake 
before in Cyrill, where you said that Christ hath only a spi- 
ritual body and a spiritual presence, and now you say he 
hath a corporal presence; and so you confound corporal 
and spiritual^ as if you knew not what either of them meant, 
or wist not or cared not what you said. But now I will 
return to my book, and rehearse mine answer unto St. 
John Chrysostome, which is this. 

[See vol. ii. p. 416. " Now let us examine''—** tran- 
** substantiation."] 


Chrysos- This author noteth in Chrysostonie two places^ and bringeth 
^™' them forth, and in handling the Bret place, declareth himself to 

trifle in so great a matter, evidently to bis own reproof. For 
where in the second book of his work, entreating transubstantia- 
tion, he would the same words of Chrysostom by this form of 
speech in the negative should not deny precisely: and when 
Chrysostom saith, <' Do not think that you by man receive the body 
" of God>" but that we should not consider man in the receiving 
of it ; here this author doth allege those words^ and reasoneth i 
of them as though they were terms of mere denial. But I would 
ask of this author this question. If Chrysostom*s faith had been, 
that we receive not the body of God in the sacrament verily, why 
should he use words idly, to entreat of whom we receive the body 
of God, which after this author s doctrine we receive not at all but 2 
in figure; and no body at all which is of Christ's humanity, being 
Christ, as this author teacheth, spiritually, that is, by his divine 
nature in him only that worthily receiveth, and in the very sacra- 
ment, as he concludeth in this book, only figuratively. Turn back. 


reader, to the thirty-sixth leaf in the author's book ^, and read it with BOOK 
this, and so consider upon what principle here is made an Ergo, ^^^' 
I will answer that place when I speak of transubstantiation, which 

3 shall be after answer to the third and fourth book, as the natural 
order of the matter requireth. 

The second place of Chrysostora that this author bringeth 
forth, he granteth it soundeth much against him, and favoureth 
hb adversaries, but with conferring and considering he trusteth 
to alter it from the true understanding. And not to expound but 
confound the matter, he joineth in speech the sacrament of bap- 
tism with this sacrament, (which shift this author used untruly in 
Hilary^) and would now bear in hand that the presence of Christ 
were none otherwise in this sacrament than in baptism ; which is 

4 not so, for in this sacrament Christ's humanity and Godhead is 
really present, and in baptism his Godhead with the efiectual vir- 
tue of his blood, in which we be washed, not requiring by Scrip- 
ture any real presence thereof for dispensation of that mystery, as 
I hare before touched discussing the answer to Emissen -, whereas 
Chrysostome' speaking of this sacrament whereof I have before 
spoken, and Melancthon allying it to (Ecolampadius, saith thus : 

5 ** The great miracle and great benevolence of Christ is, that he 
'' sitteth above with his Father, and is the same hour in our 
" hands here to be embraced of us.** And therefore where this 
author would note the wonder of God*s work in the sacrament to 
be wonderful for the work and efifect in man, this is one piece of 
truth ', but in the sacrament of tlie body and blood of Christ, the 
old fathers wonder at the work in the sacrament, how bread is 
changed into the body of Christ, how Christ sitting in heaven God 
and man^ is also man and God in the sacrament, and being wor- 
thily received, dwelleth in such, carnally and naturally, as Hilary 
saith, and corporally, as Cyrill saith. How this can be, no man 
can tell, no faithful man should ask, and yet it is the true catho- 
lic faith, to be truly so wrought. For as Emissene saith : " He An issue. 

6 " that is the author of it, he is the witness of it." And therefore I 
will make it an issue with this author, that the old fathers, speak- 
ing of the wonderful operation of God in this sacrament, refer it 
not only to the virtue and eflect of this sacrament, nor to the vir- 
tue specially, but chiefly to the operation of God in the substance 
of this sacrament, and the sacrament self: for such a difference 

"> [See vol. ii. p. 341.] * Chrysost. De Sacerdot. lib. iii. 


BOOK St. Augustine maketh, saying : *' Aliud est sacramentum, aliud vir- 

^^^' ** tus sacramenti^/* ''The sacrament is one, the virtue of the sa- 

'' crament is another." Finally, in answering to Chrysostome^ this 

author doth nothing but spend words in vain, to the more plain 

declaration of his own ignorance, or worse. 


As concerning Chrysostome you have spent so many 
taunting and scornful words in waste without cause, that I 
need to waste no words here at all to make you answer, but 
refer the reader to my book the 25th leaf and S6th leaf^ and 
to the 32nd, SSrd, and 84th leaf, where the reader shall find 
all that is here spoken fully answered unto ^. 
Christ is But always you be like yourself, proceeding in the ampli- 1 
traiyprl^. fication of an argument against me^ which you have forged 
sent and re- yourself, and charge me therewith untruly. For I use not 
this speech, that we receive not the body of God at all, that 
we receive it but in a figure. For it is my constant faith and 
belief, that we receive Christ in the sacrament verily and 
truly, and this is plainly taught and set forth in my book. 
Verily. But that ^^ verily,^ as I with Chrysostome and all the old au- 
thors take it, is not of such a sort as you would have it. 
For your understanding of ^^ verily^ is so Capemaical, so 
gross, and so dull, in the perceiving of this mystery, that 
you think a man cannot receive the body of Christ verily, 
unless he take him corporally in his corporal mouth, flesh, 
blood, and bones, as he was bom of the Virgin Mary. But 
it is certain, that Chrysostome meant not that we receive 
Christ^s body verily after such a sort, when he saith, ^* Do 
" not think that you receive by a man the body of God." And 
yet because I deny only this gross understanding, you mis- 
report my doctrine, that I should say we receive not Christ 
at all but in a figure, and no body at all : wherein you un- 2 
truly and slanderously report me, as my whole book and 
doctrine can witness agunst you. For my doctrine is^ that 
the very body of Christ which was bom of the Virgin 
Mary, and suffered for our sins, giving us life by his death, 

f In Joan, tract. 36. > [See vol. ii. pp. 324. 340. 336, 337, 338.] 


the same Jesus, as concerning his corporal presence, is taken BOOK 
from us, and sitteth at the right hand of his Father, and yet ^^^' 
is he by faith spiritually present with us, and is our spi- 
ritual food and nourishment, and sitteth in the midst of all 
them that be gathered together in his name. And this 
feeding is a spiritual feeding and an heavenly feeding, far 
pasang all corporal and carnal feeding, and therefore there 
is a true presence and a true feeding in deed, and not in a 
figure only, or not at all, as you most untruly report my 
saying to be. This is the true understanding of the true 
presence, receiving and feeding upon the body and blood of 
our Saviour Christ, and not as you deprave the meaning 
and true sense thereof, that the receiving of Christ truly 
and verily, is the receiving corporally with the corporal 
mouth, or that the spiritual receiving is to receive Christ 
only by his divine nature, which thing I never said nor 
meant. Turn, I pray thee^ gentle reader, to the 36th leaf of 
my books, and note these words there, which I all^ out of 
Chrysostom . ^^ Do not think,^ saith he^ ^^ that you receive by 
** a man the body of God.^ Then turn over the leaf, and in 
the SOth line note agun my saying, that in the holy com- 
munion, Christ himself is spiritually eaten and drunken, 
and nourisheth the right believers. Then compare those 
sayings with this place of this ignorant lawyer^ and thou 
shalt evidently perceive, that either he will not, or cannot, 
or at the least he doth not understand, what is meant in the 
Book of Common Prayer, and in my book also, by the re- 
ceiving and feeding upon Christ spiritually. 

But it is no marvel that Nicodemus and the Capemaites 
understand not Christ, before they be bom anew, and for- 
saking their papistical leaven, have learned another lesson 
of the Spirit of God, than flesh and blood can teach them. 
Much talk the papists make about this belief, that we must 
believe and have a steadfast fmth, that Chrisf s body is cor- 
porally there, where the visible forms of bread and wine be: 
of which belief is no mention made in the whole Scripture, 
which teacheth us to believe and profess, that Christ (as 

^[Seevol. ii. p. 341.] 


BOOK concerning his bodily presence) hath forsaken the world, 
^^*' and is ascended into heaven, and shall not come again until 

of the 

the restitution of all things that be spoken of by Prophets. 
But whereas in the feeding upon Christ^s body and drink- 
ing of his blood, there is no mouth and teeth can serve^ but 
only the inward and spiritual mouth of faith, there the pa- 
pists keep nlence like monks, and speak very little. And 
the cause why, is flesh and blood, which so blindeth all the 
Nicodemes and Capemaites, that they cannot understand 
what is spiritual nativity, spiritual circumdsion, spiritual 
hunger and thirst, and spiritual eating and drinking of the 
flesh and blood of our Saviour Christ, but they hang alto- 
gether so in the letter, that they cannot enter into the king- 
dom of the Spirit ; which knowledge, if that you had, you 
should soon perceive upon what principle my Ergo were 
Tlie order And where you pervert. the order of the books, settings 
the cart before the horse, that is to say, the third and fourth 
book before the second, saying that the natural order of the 
matter so requireth, here the reader may note an evident 
mark of all subtle papists, which is, under the pretence and 
colour of order, to break that order whereby the falsehood 
of their doctrine should best be detected, and the truth 
brought to light. For when they perceive a window open, 
whereby the light may shine in and the truth appear, then 
they busily go about to shut that window, and to draw the 
reader from that place to some mystical and obscure matter 
where more darkness is, and less light can be seen. And 
when besides the darkness of the matter, they have by their 
subtle sophistry cast such a mist over the reader'^s eyes, 
that he is become blind : then dare they make him judge^ 
be the matter never so untrue. And no marvel, for he is 
now become so blindfold, and subject unto them^ th&t he 
must say whatsoever they bid him, be it never so much re- 
pugnant to the evident truth. In such sort it is in the mat- 
ter of the sacrament. For the papists perceiving that their 
-error should easily be espied if the matter of transubstan- 
tiation were first determined, the plain words of the Scrip- 


ture, the consent of ancient writers, the articles of our faiths BOOK 
the nature of a sacrament, reason and all senses making so 
evidently against it, therefore none of the subtle papists 
will be glad to talk of transubstantiation, but they will al- 
ways bear men in hand^ that other matters must first be ex- 
amined, as the late Bishop doth here in this place. 

Now in the second place of Chrysostome, where you say 
that in this sacrament Christ'^s humanity and Godhead is 

4 really present, and in baptism his Godhead with the effec- 
tual virtue of his blood in which we be washed, not requir- 
ing by Scripture any real presence thereof for the dispen- 
sation of that mystery, in this matter I have joined an 
issue with you before in the answer unto Origen^ which 
shall suffice for answer here also. 

5 And where St. John Chrysostom speaketh of the great Chry80ftto< 
miracle of Christ, that he sitteth above with his Father, and ™""' 

is the same hour here with us in our hands, truth it is, 
that Christ sitteth above with his Father in his natural 
body triumphant in glory, and yet is the same hour in our 
hands sacramentally, and present in our hearts by grace and 
spiritual nourishment. But that we should not think that 
he is corporally here with us, St. Augustine giveth a rule in 
his Epistle Ad Dardanamj saying : ** Cavendum est ne ita 
'« divinitatem astruamus hominis, ut veritatem corporis au- 
** feramus,^ *^ We must foresee that we do not so affirm the 
** divinity of him that is man, that we should thereby take 
*' away the truth of his body.^ And forasmuch as it is against 
the nature and truth of a natural body to be in two places 
at one time, therefore you seem to speak against the truth 
of Christ^s natural body, when you teach that his body is 
in heaven naturally, and also naturally in the sacrament. 
For whosoever affirmeth that Chrisfs body is in sundry 
places, as his Godhead is, seemeth to deify Chrisf s body by 
St. Augustine^s rule K But like as it is not to be thought, 
that '^ quicquid est in Deo, est putandum ubique ut Deus,^ 
that ^* whatsoever is in God, is every where as God is,^ so 
must we not think that his body may be at one time every 

* August. Ad Dard* 


BOOK where, where his Godhead is. But Christ is, saith St. Au- 
^"' gustine, ** ubique per id quod est Deus, in coelo autem per 
*' id quod est homo,'" ^< every where, in that he is God, but 
<^ in heaven, in that he is man.^ Wherefore his presence here 
of his body must be a sacramental presence, and the pre> 
sence of his Divinity, of his grace, of his truth, of his ma- 
jesty and power, is real and effectual in many places, ac- 
cording to his word. 
Wherein is Now as Concerning your issue, I refuse it not, but say, 6 
'that the great miracle whereat the Jews wondered, and 
which our Saviour Christ meant, and the old fathers speak 
of, is of the eating of Chrisfs flesh and drinking of his blood, 
and how by flesh and blood we have everlasting life. Now 
if you can bring good testimony for you, that the sacra- 
ment eateth Chrises flesh and drinketh his blood, and that 
it shall live for ever, (which never had life,) and that God^s 
operation and work is more in dumb creatures than in man, 
then I must needs and will confess the issue to pass with 
you. And when I hear your testimonies, I shall make an- 
swer ; but before I hear them, I should do nothing else but 
spend words in vain, and beat the wind to no purpose. 
Now hear what I have answered to Theophilus Alexandria 

[See vol. ii. p. 417—419. " Yet furthermore^ 

" comfortable."] 


Theophy. Now followeth, as it is endtled^ Theophylact, being the words 
lAct. indeed not of Theopbylacte as he writeth upon Mark, and there- 

fore they were not alleged as his words, but as the words of Theo- 
philus Alexandrinus, wherein this author traverseth a falsehood on 
the alleger's part to wrong-name the author. In which allegation 
I say if there be a feult, as I know none, it is no lie, but a probable 
error, for a roan to believe another better learned than himself; 
and as I found it alleged I reported it again ; so as having mine 
author learned whom I followed, I am discharged of malice, being i 
the author such, whom I followed, as might possibly have had such 
a work of TlieophOus containing those words as they be alleged ; 
the negative whereof how this author should prove I cannot tell. 


because of the common sayiDg, '*Beniardu8 non vidit omnia;" BOOK 
and therefore there may be a Theophilus Alexandrinus, having ^^^' 
these words alleged in their form for any demonstration this au- 
thor can make to the contrary. Whether there be or no any such 
to be showed, it is not material^ being so many testimonies be- 
sides. As for Theophylact's words, I grant they be not, for he wrote An issue. 
his mind more plainly in another place of his works, as I shall here- 
after show, and by the way make an issue with this author, that 
no catholic writer among the Greeks hath more plainly set forth 
3 the truth of the presence of Christ's body in the sacrament than 
Theophylact hath ; as shall appear by and by, after I have noted to 
the reader this, how CEcolampadius of Germany^, about a twoThcophy- 
years before he impugned the truth of Christ's presence in the sa- I'^fl/?"^ ' 
crament, he translated out of Greek into Latin the works of the GScolam- 
said Theophylact, and gave the Latin Church thereby some weapon ^^^\ 
wherewith to destroy his wicked folly afterward ; not unlike the 
chance in this author, translating into English, two years by past, 
the Catechism of Germany 3 and as OBcolampadius hath since his 
foUy or madness against the sacrament, confessed, as appeareth, 

3 that he did translate Theophylact, so as we need not doubt of it, 
so this author hath now in this work confessed the translation of 
the Catechism, which one in communication would needs have 
made me believe had been his man's doing and not his. 

Hear now, reader, how plainly Theophylact speaketh upon the 

4 Gospel of St. John, expounding the sixth chapter. *' Take heed Tlieophy- 
** that the bread which is eaten of us in the mysteries, is not only ^'^^ 

** a certain figuration of the flesh of our Lord, but the flesh itself [1580.] 
*' of our Lord 5 for he said not. The bread which I shall give is 
** the figure of my flesh, but. It is my flesh. For that bread by 
** the mystical benediction, is transformed by mystical words 
'* and presence of the Holy Ghost into the flesh of our Lord. 
** And it should trouble no man that the bread is to be believed 

5 " flesh, for whilst our Lord walked in flesh and received nourish- 
** ment of bread, that bread he did eat was changed into his body, 

^ [Melancthon wrote thus on this subject in 1550: ** Multis libris 
" novse et noths sententiae apertse sunt. Id in Theophylacto accidisse 
^ certum est. Nam quod CEcolampadius in suo codice vertit, (cam qui- 
** dem rem non probaret,) sed vertit tamen : id in nostro codice prorsus 
*^ deerat.'* Melancth. Epiit. lib. iii. 41. The variations in the manu- 
scripts of Theophylact are very considerable, and a correct text seems 
to be still a desideratum. See Fabricius, BibL Grmc, Harles.] 





BOOK " Ai3<^ w^ made like to his holy flesh, and, as it is customably in 
^^1* •• nian*s feeding, served to the sustentation and increase of it ; 
" therefore the bread now also is changed into the flesh of our 
Lord. And how is it then that it appeareth not flesh but bread ? 
that we should not loth the eating of it : for if flesh did appear, 
we should be unpleasantly disposed to the communion of it. 
Now our Lord condescending to our inflrmity, the mystical 
meat appeareth such to us, as those we have been accustomed 
*' unto." Hitherto I have faithfully expressed Theopbylact*8 
words out of Latin of CEcolampadius' translation, without terming 
the substantia] points otherwise than the words purport in Latin 3 
by which may appear what was Theophylact's meaning, what doc 
trine he giveth of the sacrament, and how his own words upon 
St. Mark be to be understanded^ when he saith, " Speciem qui- 
dem panis et vini servat, in virtutem autem carnis et sanguinis 
transelementat;" in corrupting of which words this author maketh 
a great matter when they were not alleged for his ; but as they be 
his, " servare speciem** may be well translated, " form and appear- 
ance,** because upon St. John before alleged, he saith of the bread, 6 
it appeareth.** And as for these words, ** the virtue of Christ's 
** flesh and blood,'* must be understanded to agree with the plain/ 
place of Theophylact upon St. John, and upon St. Mark also, to 
signify not only virtue, but verity of the flesh and blood of Christ. 
For if Theophylact by that speech meant the virtue of the body of 
Christ, and not the verity of the very body, (as this author saith he 
did) why should Theophylact, both upon St Mark and also upon 
St. John, ask this question. Why doth not the flesh appear ? if 
himself by those words should teach there were only present the 
virtue of his flesh 5 who, and he had meant so, would not have 
asked the question ; or if he had, would have answered it thus, 
accordingly, there is no flesh in deed^ but the virtue of the flesh -, 9 
and that had been a plain answer, and such as he would have 
made. This author will ask then, why doth Theophylact use this 
phrase to say, ^' changed into the virtue of the body of Christ V* 
Hereunto I answer, that this word " virtue,** in phrase of speech 
many times only fiUeth the speech, and is comprehended in the 
signification of his genitive following ; and therefore as Luke, in 
the twenty-second chapter^ saith^ '* a dextrts virtutis Dei ;** so in 
the Acts in the same sentence is spoken '* a dextris Del ;** both 8 
out of one pen : and " a dextris virtutis Dei** is no more to say than 



** a deitris Dei ;" and so is " virtutem carais et sanguinis" no mora BOOK 
to say but ** in carnetn et sanguinem -" which sentence, the same L. 

Theophylact hath upon St. John before alleged, in this saying, 
" The bread is changed into flesh." and in Mark in this phrase, '* in- 
** to the virtue of flesh," being like these speeches, " a dextris Dei" 
and '* a dextris virtutis Dei." Which and it had liked this author 
to have considered, he should have taken Theophylact's speech as 
Theophylact understandeth himself, and said the words alleged in 
the name of Theophilus Alexandrinus, were not Theophylact*s 
ID words, and then he had said for so much true, which would do 
weU among, and the words be not indeed Theophylact's words, 
nor were not alleged for his. Now when this author saith, they 
were not Theophilus Alexandrinus* words, that is a large negative^ 
and will be hardly proved otherwise than by addition of the au* 
thor*s knowledge^ for any thing that he can find, and so there 
shall be no absurdity to grant it. 

And thus I return to mine issue with this author^ that Theo- 
phylact himself hath no such meaning expressed in words as this 
author attributed unto him, but an evident contrary meaning, sav- 
ing herein I will agree with this author^ that Theophylact meant 
not grossly, sensibly, and carnally, as these words sound in carnal 
men*s judgments. For we may not so think of God's mysteries^ 
the work whereof is not carnal^ nor corporal^ for the manner of it^ 
but the manner spiritual ^ and yet in the sacrament of the body 
and blood of Christ, because Christ is in his very true flesh pre- Carnally, 
sent, he may be said so carnally present, and naturally, after Hi- °q|?J^^' 
lary, and corporally, after Cyrill, understanding the words of the manner, 
truth of that is present Christ's very body and flesh, and not of the ^^^ "P^"* 
manner of the presence, which is only spiritual, supernatural, and [1580.] 
above man*s capacity; and therefore a high mystery, a great 
miracle, a wonderful work^ which it is wholesome to believe sim- 
ply with a sincere faith, and dangerous to search and examine with 
a curious imagination, such as idleness and arrogancy would 
tempt a man unto, and by devising of a figure or metaphor, bring 
it within the compass of our busy reason. 


I This 18 a pretty sldght of you to pass over the author^s 
name, saying that you found it so alleged in an author, and 
tell not in what author. There is surely some hid mystery 

u 4 


BOOK in this matter, that you would not have his name known. 
^"' For if you had found my approved author, who had father- 
ed these words upon Theophilus Alexandrinus, I doubt not 
but I should have heard him here named, it should have 
served so much for your purpose. For to what purpose 
should you conceal his name, if you had any such author? 
But shall I open the mystery of this matter ? Shall I by 
conjectures tell the author which you followed, as you by 
conjecture gathered of him the name of Theophilus ? Tho- 

Thomis. jjj^g jg Aquino, in his Ccdena Aurea^ citeth the words by 
you alleged in these letters, '^ Theoph.^ which letters be in- 
different as well to Theophilus as to Theophylactus ; so that 
you might have christened the child whether you would, by 
the name of Theophilus or of Theophylactus. And because 
Theophilus was a more ancient author^ and of more learning 
and estimation than was Theophylacte, therefore that name 
pleased you better, to ^ve more credit to your sayings, and 
so of Theoph. you made the whole name Theophilus. And 
because one Theophilus was a bishop of Alexandry, you 
added as it were his surname, calling him Theophilus Alex- 
andrinus. And if Thomas was not the author which you 
followed in this matter, peradventure it might be Doctor 

Fisher. Fisher, sometime Bishop of Rochester, who, writing in the 
same matter that you do, was or would be deceived as you 
be. But what author soever you followed, you shall not 
honestly shake off this matter, except you tell his name ; 
for else I will say that you be fiEun to bring in for you 
feigned authors whispered in corners. And yet that Theo- 
philus wrote not the words alleged upon Mark, this is no 
small proof that Theophylact hath the same sentences word 
by word, and that neither St. Hierome^ Gennadius, Euse- 
bius^ Tritemius, nor any other that ever wrote hitherto, 
made ever any mention that Theophilus wrote upon the 
Gospel of St. Mark. 

And as concerning your issue, thus much I grant without a 
issue, that no catholic writer among the Greeks hath more 
plainly spoken for you than Theophylacte hath, and yet 
when that shall be well examined, it is nothing at all^ as I 


have plainly declared, showing your untruth as well in al- boo k 
l^;ation of the author^s words, as in falsifying his name. 


3 And as for the Catechism of Grermany by me translated t^ ^^te- 
into English, to this I have answered before; and truth 

it is, that either you understand not the phrase of the old 
authors of the Church, or else of purpose you will not un- 
derstand me. But hereunto you shall have a more full 
answer, when I come to the proper place thereof in the 
fourth part of my book. 

4 And as concerning the words of Theophylact upon the 
Gospel of John, he speaketh to one effect, and useth much 
like terms upon the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John ; 
whereunto I have suiBciently answered in my former book. 
And because the answer may be the more present, I shall 
rehearse some of my words here again. '^ Although,^ said I, 
*^ Theophylactus spake of the eating of the very body of 
*^ Christ, and the drinking of his very blood, and not only of 

the figures of them, and of the conversion of the bread and 
wine into the body and blood of Christ, yet he meaneth not 
^' of a gross, carnal, corporal, and sensible convernon of the 
'' bread and wine, nor of a like eadng and drinking of his 
** flesh and blood (for so not only our stomachs would yearn, 
^* and our hearts ahhat to eat his flesh and to drink his blood, 
*^ but also such eating and drinking could nothing profit and 
*< avail us) but he spake of the celestial and spiritual eating 
^' of Christ, and of a sacramental conversion of the bread, 
calling the bread not only a figure, but also tlie body of 
Christy giving us by those words to understand, that in the 
sacrament we do not only eat corporally the bread, which 
^* is a sacrament and figure of Christ^s body, but spiritually 
we eat also his very body and drink his very blood. And 
this doctrine of Theophylactus is both true, godly, and 
<< comfortable.^ This I wrote in my former book, which is 
sufficient to answer unto all that you have here spoken. 

5 And as concerning the bread that Christ did eat and feed 
upon, it was naturally eaten, as other men eat, naturally 
changed, and caused a natural nourishment ; and yet the 
very matter of the bread remained, although in another 





^?n '^ form ; but in them that duly receive and eat the Lord's holy 

Supper, all is spiritual, as well the eating as the change and 

nourishment, which is none impediment to the nature of 
bread, but that it may still remain. 

And where you come to the translation of this word 6 

awwi^^**'^ ** species" to signify appearance, this is a wonderful kind of 

ance. translation, to translate ^^ specie," ^* in appearance," because 

" apparet" is truly translated ** appearedi ;" with like reason 

" aurum" might be translated "meat," because "edere" 

signifieth " to eat," 

And your other translation is no less wonderful, where 7 
y*r*y ^^' you turn the virtue of Christ^s body into the verity. And 
yet to cloke your folly therein, and to cast a mist before the 
reader^s eyes, that he should not see your untruth therein, 
you say that by " virtue" in that place must be understand- 
ed " verity." First, whatsoever be understand by the word 
" virtue," your faith in translation is broken. For the sense 
being ambiguous, you ought in translation to have kept the 
word as it is, leaving the sense to be expended by the indif- 
ferent reader, and not by altering the word, to make such a 
sense as please you, which is so foul a fault in a translator, 
that if CEcolampadius had so done, he should have been 
called a man faulty and guilty, a corrupter, a deceiver, an 
abuser of other men, a pcrverter, a depraver, and a man 
without faith. As he might be called that would translate 
Verbum caro factum est," ^* The second person became 
man," which, although it be true in meaning, yet it is not 
true in translation, nor declareth the faith of the translator. 
But now as your translation is untrue, so is the meaning 
also untrue and inexcusable. For what man is so far des- 
titute of all his senses, that he knoweth not a difference be- 
tween the verity of Christ''s body, and the virtue thereof? 
Who can pretend ignorance in so manifest a thing ? Doth 
not all men know, that of every thing the virtue is one, and 
the substance another ? Except in God only, who is of that 
simplicity without multiplication of any thing in him, or di- 
versity, that his virtue, his power, his wisdom, his justice, 
and all that is sud to be in him, be neither qualities nor 


accidents, but all one thing with his very substance. And BOOK 
neither the right hand of Grod, nor the virtue of God (which ' 

you bring for an example, and serveth to no purpose but to 
blind the ignorant reader) be any thing else but the very 
substance of God, although in diversity of respects and con- 
nderations they have diversity of names, except you will 
divide the most single substance of God into corporal parts 
and members, following the error of the Anthropomorphites. 
But the like is not in the body of Christ, which hath distinc- 
tion of integral parts, and the virtue also and qualities dis* 
tinct from the substance. 
* And yet if the example were like, he should be an evil A deztris 
translator, or rather a corrupter, that for ^^ a dextris virtutis deztris vir- 
" Dei'' would translate " a dextris Dei,'' or contrary wise. *"^" ^^* 
And therefore all translators in those places follow the words 
as they be, and be not so arrogant to alter one tittle in them, 
thereby to make them one in words, although the thing in 
substance be one. For words had not their signification of 
the substances or of things only, but of the qualities, man- 
nen,, respects, and considerations ; and so may one word sig- 
nify divers things, and one thing be signified by divers words. 
And therefore he that should for one word take another, be- 
cause they be both referred to one substance, as you have 
done in this place, should make a goodly piece of work of it, 
not much unlike to him that should burn his house, and say 
he made it, because the making and burning was both in one 
matter and substance. 

It is much pity that you have not bestowed your time in 
translation of good authors, that can skill so well of transla- 
tion, to make '^ spedenC* to signify *^ appearance,'' and that 
take virtue sometime for verity, and sometime for nothing ; 
and *^ a dexteris virtuUs Dei," to signify no more but ^' a dex- 
^' teris Dei," and ** virtutem camis" to signify no more but 
*^ camem," and *^ virtutem sanguinis," '^ sanguinem." And 
why not? seeing that such words signify adplacitum^ that 
is to say, as please you to translate them. 

And it seemeth to me a strange thing, that you have so 
quick an eye to espy other men's faults, and cannot see in 


BOOK Theophylact his plain answer^ but take upon you to teadi 

" him to answer. For when he asketh the question, why doth 9 

not the flesh appear? he should have answered, say you^ 
that the flesh is not there in deed, but the virtue of the 
flesh. I pray you doth not he answer plainly the same in ef- 
fect ? Is not his answer to that question this, as you confess 
yourself, that the forms of bread and wine be changed into 
the virtue of the body of Christ. And what would you re- 
quire more ? Is not this as much to say, as the virtue of the 
flesh is there, but not the substance corporally and car- 

And yet another third error is committed in the same 
sentence, because one sentence should not be without three 
errors at the least in your translauon* For whereas Theo« 
phylact bath imt one accusative case, you put thereto other 
two mo of your own head. And as you once taught 
Barnes^, so now you would make Theophylact your scholar, 
to say what you would have him. But that the truth may 
appear what Theophylact said, I shall rehearse his own 
words in Greek: ^^ ovyKaTa^aivwf iffAUf 6 (l}tkiv$pwnos, t6 
'* likv €Z5o9 ipTQv ical olvcv (pykirretf els hCva^uv ik crapKhs tccX 
" atiJMTos fAcrooTOixeioi,^ which words, translated into Latin, 
be these : ** Condescendens nobis benignus Deus, speciem 
^^ quidem panis et vini servat, in potestatem autem camis et 
** sanguinis transelementat.^ And in English they be thus 
much to say : '^ The merciful God, condescending to our in- 
" firmity, conserveth still the kind of bread and wine, but 
^^ tumeth them into the virtue of his flesh and blood."*^ To 
this sentence you do add of your own authority these words, 
^^ the bread and wine,^ which words Theophylact hath not ; 
which is an untrue part of him that pretendeth to be a true 
interpreter* And by adding those words, you alter clearly 
the author'^s meaning ; for where the author^s meaning was, 
that we should abhor to eat Christ^s flesh and drink his 
blood in their proper form and kind, yet Almighty God 

^ [This is an allusion to Barnes's recantation of some opinions on jus- 
tification, made at the instance of Gardyner. See Buraet, Ref, vol. i. 
p. 593 ; Foze, Acts, &c. vol. i. 5S5.] 


hath ordained that in his holy Supper we should receive the BOOK 
forms and kinds of bread and wine, and that those kinds '''' 
should be turned, unto them that worthily receive the same, 
into the virtue and effect of Christ's very flesh and blood, 
although they remain still in the same kind and form of 
bread and wine. And so by him the nature and kind of 
bread and wine remain ; and yet the same be turned into the 
virtue of flesh and blood. So that the word ^^ forms^ is the 
accusative case, as well to the verb ^^ tumeth^ as to the verb 
"conserveth ;^ but you, to make Theophylact serve your pur- 
pose, add of your own head two other accusaUve cases, that 
is to say, *^ bread and wine,^ besides Theophylact^s words; 
wherein all men may consider how little you regard the 
truth; that, to maintain your untrue doctrine once devised 
by yourselves, care not what untruth you use besides, to 
corrupt all doctors, making so many faults in translation of 
one sentence. 
>o And if the words alleged upon Mark were not Theophy- 
lacf s words, but the words of Theophilus Alexandrinus, as 
you say, at the least Theophylact must borrow them of 
Theophilus, because the words be all one sixteen lines toge^ 
ther, saving this word ** verity," which Theophylact turneth 
into virtue. And then it is to be thought, that he would 
not alter that word, wherein all the contention standeth, 
without some consideration. And specially when Theo- 
philus speaketh of the verity of Christ's body, as you say, 
if Theophylact had thought the body had been there, would 
he have refused the word, and changed verity into virtue, 
bringing his own faith into suspicion, and ^ving occa^on of 
error unto other ? 

And where^ to excuse your error in translation, you say 
that the words by you alleged in the name of Theophilus 
Alexandrinus, be not Theophylact^s words, and I deny that 
they be Theophilus^ words, so then be they nobody^s words; 
which is no detriment to my cause at all, because I took 
him for none of my witness ; but it is in a manner a clear 
overthrow of your cause, which take him for your chief and 
principal witness, saying that no catholic writer among the 


BOO K Greeks hath more plainly set forth the truth of the presence 
/"• of Christ's body in the sacrament than Theophylactus hath ; 

and hereupon you make your issue. 

And yet have I a good cause to call them Theophylacf s 
words, forasmuch as I find them in his works printed abroad, 
saving one word, which you have untruly corrupted, because 
that word pleaseth you not. And yet am I not bound to 
admit that your witness is named Theophilus, except you 
have better proofs thereof than this, that one saith he hath 
him in a comer, and so allegeth him. It is your part to 
prove your own witness, and not my part, that stand herein 
only at defence. And yet to every indifferent man I have 
showed sufficient matter to reject him. Hear now my an- 
swer to St. Hierome. 

[See vol. ii. p. 419, 420. « Beades this"" ** into hea- 

« ven.""] 


HieronyiD. This author travaileth to answer St Hierom; and to make him 
the easier for him to deal with, he ciitteth off that followeth in the 
same St. Hierome, which should make the matter open and mani- 
fest how effectually St. Hierome speaketh of the sacrament of 
Christ's body and blood. '^ There is," saith St. Hierome, " as 
great difference between the loaves called Panes proposUionis r 
and the body of Christ, as there is between the shadow of a 
body and the body itself; and as there is between an image and 
the true thing itself; and between an example of things to come, 
and the things that be prefigured by them. Therefore as meek- 
ness, patience, sobriety, moderation, abstinence of gain, hospi- 
tality also, and liberality should be chiefly in a bishop, and 
among all lay men an excellency in them ; so there should he 
in him a special chastity, and as 1 should say chastity that is 
priestly^ that he should not only abstain from unclean work, 
but also from the cast of his eye, and his mind free from error 
of thought, that should make the body of Christ.'* These be 
St. Hieronie*s words in this place. By the latter part whereof ap- 
peareth plainly how St. Hierome meaneth of Christ's body in the 
sacrament, of which the loaves that were Panes propositionis were a 
shadow* as St. Hierome saith, that bread being the image, and this 









the truth ; that the example, and this that was prefigured. So as if BOO K 
Christ's body in the sacrament should be there but figuratively, as ^^^- 
this author teacheth, then were the bread of proposition, figure of a 
figure, and shadow of a shadow, which is over great an absurdity in 
our religion. Therefore there cannot be a more plain proof to 
show^ that^ by St. Hierome*s mind, Christ's body is verily in the sa*- 
crament, and not figuratively only, than when he noteth Panes pro- 
poiitionis to be the figure and the shadow of Christ's body in the 

3 sacrament. For as Tertullian saith**, '^ Figura non esset, nisi veri- 
" tatis esset corpus," ** The other were not to be called a figure, 
** if that, that answered unto it, were not of truth;** which is the 
sense of Tertullian's words. And therefore St. Hierome could 
with no other words have expressed his mind so certainly and 
plainly^ as with these, to confess the truth of Christ's body in the 
sacrament. And therefore regard not, reader, what this author 
saith ; for St. Hierome affirmeth plainly Christ's true body to be 
in the sacrament ; the consecration whereof, although St. Hierome 
attributeth to the minister, yet we must understand him that he 
taketh God for the author and worker, notwithstanding by reason 
of the ministry in the Church the doing is ascribed to man as 
minister, because Christ said Hoc facUe ; after which speech, sal- 
vation, remission of sin, and the work in other sacraments, is at- 
tribute to the minister, being nevertheless the proper and special 
works of God. And this I add, because some be unjustly offend- 
ed, to hear that man should make the body of Christ. And this 
author findeth fault before at the word making, which, religiously 
heard and reverently spoken, should offend no man, for man is 

3 but a minister, wherein he should not glory. And Christ maketh 
not himself of the matter of bread, nor maketh himself so oft of 
bread a new body ; but, sitting in heaven, doth, as our invisible 
priest, work in the ministry of the visible priesthood of his Church, 
and maketh present by his omnipotency his glorious body and 
blood in this high mystery, by conversion of the visible creatures 
of bread and wine, as Emissene saith, into the same. This author 
of this book, as thou, reader, mayest perceive, applieth the figure of 
the breads called Panes proposUionis, to the body of Christ to 
come ; whereas St. Hierome calleth them the figure of Christ's 
body in the sacrament, and therefore doth fashion his argument in 
this sense. If those breads that were but a figure, required so 

* Tertullianu9| Adversui Marckmem^ lib. iv. 


BOOK ™"^^ cleanness in them that should eat them, that they might not 
in. eat of them^ which a day or two before had lain with their wives^ 
what cleanness is required in him that should make the body of 
Christ } Whereby thou mayest see how this author hath reserved 
this notable place of St. Hierome to the latter end, that thou 
shouldest in the end as well as in the midst see him evidently 
snarled, for thy better remembrance. 


To these words of St. Hierome I have suflSciently an- 
swered in my former book. And now to add something 
thereunto, I say that he meaneth not that Panes proposu i 
tionis be figures of the sacrament, but of Christ^s very body. 
And yet the same body is not only in the sacrament figura- 
tively, but it is also in the true ministration thereof spi- 
ritually present and spiritually eaten, as in my book I have 
plainly decbired. But how is it posable that Caius, Ulpian, 
or Scevola^ Batholus, Baldus, or Curtius, should have 
knowledge what is meant by the spiritual presence of ChriBt 
in the sacrament, and of the spiritual eating of his flesh and 
blood, if they be void of a lively faith, feeding and comfort- 
ing their souls with their own works and not with the 
breaking of the body and shedding of the blood of our Sa- 
viour Christ. 

The meat that the papists live by, is indulgences and 
pardons, and such other remission of sin, as cometh all from 
the Pope, which giveth no life, but infecteth and poisoneth; 
but the meat that the true Christian man liveth by, is 
Christ himself^ who is eaten only by faith, and so eaten is 
life and spirit, ^ving that life that endureth and continueth 
for ever. Grod grant that we may learn this heavenly 
knowledge of the spiritual presence, that we may spiritually 
taste and feed of this heavenly food. 

Now where you say that there cannot be a more plain a 
proof to show that Christ^s body is verily in the sacrament, 
and not figuratively only, than when St. Hierome noteth 
Panes prqpasiHonis to be the figure and shadow of Christ's 
body in the sacrament ; for, as Tertullian saith, '^ the other 
" were not to be called a figure^ if that which answereth to 


" it were not of truth .'^ Here your " for** is a plain JblUax BOOK 
a turn causa ad causam, and a wondrous subtlety is used ^^^' 
therein. For where Tertullian proveth that Christ had here 
in earth a very body, (which Marcion denied,) because that 
bread was instituted to be a figure thereof, and there can 
be no figure of a thing that is not, you allege Tertullian''s 
words, as though he should say, that Christ^s body is in 
the sacrament under the form of bread, whereof neither 
Tertuliiane entreated in that place, nor it is not required 
that the body should be corporally where the figure is, but 
rather it should be in vain to have a figure when the thing 
itself is present. And therefore you untruly report both 
of St. Hierome and Tertullian ; for neither of them both 
do say, as you would gather of their words, that Christ^s 
body is in the sacrament really and corporally. 
3 And where you say that Christ maketh not himself of Whether 
the matter of bread, either you be very ignorant in the q^^ ^ 
doctrine of the sacrament, as it hath been taught these fivei°^« <>^^c 
hundred years, or else you dissemble the matter. Hath not bread, 
this been the teaching of the school divines, yea, of Inno- 
cent himself, that the matter of this sacrament is bread of 
wheat, and wine of grapes ? Do they not say, that the 
substance of bread is turned into the substance of Christ^s 
flesh, and that his flesh is made of bread? And who 
worketh this, but Christ himself.^ And have you not con- 
fessed all this in your book of the DeviPs Sophistry ? Why 
do you then deny here, that which you taught before, and 
which hath been the common approved doctrine of the 
papists so many years P And because it should have the 
more authority, was not this put into the Mass Books, and 
read every year, *^ Dogma datur Christianis, quod in carnem 
^^ transit panis, et vinum in sanguinem ?^^ Now seeing that 
you have taught so many years, that the matter and sub- 
stance of bread is not consumed to nothing, but is changed 
and turned into the body of Christ, so that the body of 
Christ is made of it; what mean you now to deny that 
Christ is made of the matter of bread ? When water was John ii. 



BOOK turned into wine, was not the wine made of the water? 


And when the rod was turned into a serpent, and water 

Exod Til. into blood, the earth into a man, and his rib into a woman, 

were not the woman, man, blood, and serpent made of the 

matter of the rib, the earth, the water, and the rod ? And 

is not every thing made of that which is turned into it ? as 

bread is made of com, wine of grapes, beer of water, hops, 

and malt, and so of all things like. And when you have 

confessed yourselves so many years passed, that Christ is 

made of bread in the sacrament, what moveth you now to 

say, that Christ maketh not himself of the matter of bread ? 

except that either you will say that the priest doth it, and 

not Christ, which were an intolerable blasphemy ; or that 

the truth is of such a nature, that even the very adversaries 

thereof sometime unawares acknowledge it; or else that 

force of arguments constraineth you to confess the truth 

against your will, when you see none other shift to escape. 

But if you take upon you to defend the received doctrine 

of the papists, you must affirm that doctrine which they 

affirm, and say that bread in the sacrament is the matter 

whereof Christ'^s body is made ; whereof must then needs 

follow, ex conseguenH, that he hath from time to time a 

new body, made of new bread, besides the body which was 

incarnated and never but once made, nor of none other 

substance but of his mother. So that it is but a vain cavil- 

lation, only to elude simple people, or to shift off the matter, 

to say, as you do, that Christ is not made of the bread, but 

is made to be present there. For then should he have said. 

There is my bodyy and not This is my body. And to be 

present, requireth no new making: but to be present by 

conver»on, requireth a new making. As the wine that was 

bought at the marriage in the Cane of Galilee (if there 

were any such) was present without conversion, and so 

without new making : but the wine that was made of water, 

was present by conversion, which could not be without new 

making. And so must Chrisf s body be newly made, if it 

be present by corporal conversion of the substance of bread 


into the substance of it. And now I refer to every indif- BOOK 
ferent reader to judge between us both, which of us is most ^^^* 

Now let us examine the other authors following in my 

[See vol. ii. p. 420. " And the same'' " book.''] 


B£CAU8B this author, who hitherto hath answered none sub-Augnsti- 
stantially, would nevertheless be seen to answer all, he windeth ^°** Sedu- 
up six of them in one fardel, St. Augustine, Sedulius, Leo, Ful- Fulgentias. 
gentius, Cassiodorus, and Gregorius, and dispatcheth them all^*'*'^^^* 
with an tit supra ; and among them I think he would have knit gorins. 
up all the rest of the learned men of all ages, amongst whom I 
know none that write as this author doth of the sacrament, or 
iropugneth the catholic faith as this author doth by the envious 
name of papists. Since Christ's time there is no memory more 
than of six, that hath affirmed that doctrine which this author 
would have called now the catholic doctrine, and yet not written 
by them of one sort, neither received in belief in public profession ^ 
but secretly, when it happened, begun by conspiration, and in 
the end ever hitherto extinct and quenched. First was Bertrame, 
then Berengarius^ then Wyclefie, and in our time, (Ecolampadius, 
Zwinglius, and Joachiraus Vadianus. I will not reckon Peter Peter Mar- 
Martyr, because such as know him, saith be is not learned : nor ^y^' 
this author, because he doth but as it were translate Peter 
Martyr, saving he roveth at solutions, as liketh his fancy, as I 
have before declared ; which matter being thus, it is a strange 
title of this book, to call it the true catholic doctrine. 


All that you have these many years gathered together 
for your purpose, or that can be gathered, may be well 
trussed up in a very small fardel, and very easily borne and 
carried away, for any weight that is therein. For your 
doings be like to hhn that would fain seem to have some- 
thing, and, having nothing else, filleth a great mail full of 
straw, that men should think he carried some thing, where 

X 2 


BOOK in deed a little budget had been sufficient for so much in 
_EL- value. 

And as for your own doctrine, it is so strange, that nei- 
ther it agreeth with the Scripture, nor with the old catholic 
Church, nor yet with the later Church or congregation of 
the papists; but you stand post alone, after the fall of the 
papistical doctrine, as sometime an old post standeth, when 
the building is overthrown. 

And where you say, that since Christ's time, there is no a 
mo but six that have affirmed the doctrine that I have 
taught, all that have been learned, and have read the old 
authors of the catholic Church, may evidently see the con- 
trary, that sithence Christ's time the doctrine of my book 
was ever the catholic and public received faith of the 
Nicolas the Church, until Nicolas the Second's time, who compelled 
Bereaga- Berengarius to make such a devilish recantation, that the 
rius. papists themselves be now ashamed of it. And since that 

time, have many thousands been cruelly persecuted, only 
for the profession of the true faith. For no man might 
speak one word against the Bishop of Rome's determination 
herein, but he was taken for an heretic, and so condemned, 
as WycliefFe, Husse, and an infinite number mo. 
Bertram. And as for Bertram, he was never before this time detected 
of any error that ever I read, but only now by you. For 
all other that have written of him, have spoken much to his 
commendation and praise. But I know what the matter is ; 
he hath written against your mind, which is a fault and 
error great enough. 
Peter Mar. As for Doctor Peter Martyr, he is of age to answer for 
himself; but concerning him that told you that he was not 
learned, I would wish you to leave this old rooted fault in 
you, to be light of credit. For I suppose, that if his learn- 
ing, that told you that lie, and yours also, were set both to- 
gether, you should be far behind Master Peter Martyr. 
Mary in words I think that you alone would overlay two 
Peter Martyrs, he is so sober a man, and delighteth not in 
wasting of words in vain. And none do say that he is not 
learned, but such as know him not, or be not learned them- 



selves, or else be so malicious or envious, that they wittingly BOOK 
speak against their own conscience. And no doubt that ^"' 
man bringeth himself out of the estimation of a learned 
man, which hath heard him reason and read, and saith that 
he is not learned. And whosoever misreporteth him, and 
hath never heard him, may not be called so well Momtts^ 
as Sycophanta, whose property is to misreport them whom 
they neither see nor know. Now resteth only Damascene, 
of whom I write thus. 

[See vol. ii p. 420 — 424. " But here John Damascene 
« of his blood.''] 


I LiAST of all, the author busieth himself with Damascene, and Damascen. 
goeth about to answer hini by making of a sum, which sum is so 
wrong accounted, that every man that readeth Damascene, may 
be auditor to control it. And this will I say. Damascene writeth 
so evidently in the matter, that Peter Martyr for a shift is fain to 
find fault in his judgment and age, and yet he is eight hundred years 
old at the least; and I say at the least, because he is reckoned of 
some, half as old again. And whatsoever his judgment were, he 
writeth, as Melancthon saith, his testimony of the faith of the 
sacrament, as it was in his time. I would write in here Damas- 
cens wordsy to compare them with the sum collected by this 
author, whereby to disprove his particulars plainly, but the words 
of Damascen be to be read translate already abroad. 

1 As for the four substances, which this author by account num- 
bereth of Christy might have been left unreckoned by tale^ because 
among them that be faithful and understand truly^ wheresoever 
the substance of Christ's very body ia, there is also understanded 
by concomitance to be present the substance of his soul as very 
man, and also of the Godhead as very God. And in the matter 
of the sacrament therefore, contending with him that would have 
the substance of bread there^ it may be said there is in the sacra- 
ment the only substance of Christ's body, because the word ''only" 
thus placed, excludeth other strange substances, and not the sub- 
stances which without contention be known and confessed unite 
with Christ's body. And so a man may be said to be alone in 
his house, when he hath no strangers, although he hath a number 



BOOK of his own men. And Erasmus noteth how the Evangelist writeth 
^^^' Christ to have prayed alone, and yet certain of his disciples were 
there. And if in a contention raised, whether the father and son 
were both killed in such a field or no, I defended the father to have 
been only killed there, and thereupon a wager laid ; should I lose, 
if by proof it appeared, that not only the fieither, but also three or 
four of the fathers servants were slain, but the son escaped? 
And as in this speech the word '* only** served to exclude that 
was in contention, and not to reduce the number to one, no 
more is it in the speech that this author would reprove, and 
therefore needed not to have occupied himself in the matter, 
wherein I heard him once say in a good audience himself was 
satisfied. In which mind I would he had continued, and having 
so slender stuff as this is, and the truth so evident against him, 
not to have resuscitate this so often reproved untruth, wherein 
never hitherto any one could prevail. 


As for Damascene needeth no further answer than I have i 
made in my former book. But I pray the reader, that he 
will diligently examine that place, and so to be an indifTerent 
auditor betwixt us two. 

Now when you be called to account for the number of > 
substances in the sacrament, I perceive by your wrangling, 
that you be somewhat moved with this audit, for because 
you be called to account. And I cannot blame you, though 
it somewhat grieve you, for it toucheth the very quick. 
And although I myself can right well understand your 
numbers, that when you name but one, you mean four, yet 
you should have considered beforehand to whom your 
book was written. You wrote to plain simple people in the 
English tongue, which understand no further but one to be 
one, andfour to be four. And therefore when you say there 
is but one, and mean four, you attemper not your speech to 
the capacities of them to whom you write. 

Now have I answered to all your frivolous cavillations 
against my third book, and fortified it so strongly, that you 
have spent all your shot and powder in vain. And I trust 
I have either broken your pieces or pegged them, that you 

^- ^ 


shall be able to shoot no more. Or if you shoot, the shot BOOK 
shall be so faint, that it shall not be able to pierce through ^^^' 
a paper leaf. And the like I trust to do, to all the muni- 
tion and ordnance laid against my fourth book. 


[ 812 ] 

The CanftitaiUm of the Fourth Book. 

BOOK THUS having perused the effect of the third book, I will 
' likewise peruse the fourth, and then shall follow in direct course 
to speak of the matter of transubstantiation. In this fourth book 
the author entreateth the eating and drinking of Christ's body aud 
blood : and in the first part thereof travaileth to confirm his pur- 
pose ; and in the second part, answereth as he can to his adversa- 
ries, and so taketh occasion to speak of adoration. 

His chief purpose is to prove that evil men receive not the i 
body and blood of Christ in the sacrament, which, after this au- 
thor's doctrine, is a very superfluous matter. For if the sacra- 
ment be only a figure, and the body and blood of Christ be there 
only figuratively, whereto should this author dispute of evil men*s 
eating, when good men cannot eat Christ in the sacrament, be- 
cause he is not there. For by the effect of this author*s doctrine, 
the sacrament is but a visible preaching by the tokens and signs 
of bread and wine, that in belie\ring and remembering Christ's 
benefits, with revolving them in our mind, we should in faith 
feed upon Christ spiritually, believing that as the bread and wine 
feedeth and nourisheth our bodies, so Christ feedeth and nourisheth a 
our souls : which be good words, but such as the words in Christ's 
supper do not learn us, and yet may be well gathered, not to 
limit the mystery of the supper, but to be spoken and taught 3 
touching the believing and remembering Christ's benefits, with 
the revolving of them in our mind, thereby to learn us how to 
feed upon Christ continually without the use of the visible sacra- 
ment, being that called of St. Augustine ® the invisible sacrament, 
wherein by faith we be nourished with the word of God, and the 4 
virtue of Christ's body aud blood, which the true teaching of the 
Church calleth spiritual manducation only, without which no 

* August. In Sermone Domini in motUe, lib. iii. [See p. 318. It will be 
seen b^ reference to the Juthorities in the Appendix, that Gardyner's 
reasoning is founded on a corrupt reading : the majority of MSS. having 
'* sacratum visibileniy'' instead o£" sacramentum visibile.''] 


roan is to be accounted a true member of the mystical body of BOOK 
Christ And therefore whoso feedeth upon Christ thus spiritu« '^• 
ally must needs be a good man, for only good men be true mem« 

5 bers of Christ's mystical body ; which spiritual eating is so good a 
fruit, as it declareth the tree necessarily to be good, and therefore 
it must be and is a certain conclusion, that only good men do 
eat and drink the body and blood of Christ spiritually, that is to 
say, eflectually to life. So as this author shall have of me no ad« 
versary therein. And if this author had proved that to be the 
true doctrine, that Christ*.s very body and blood is not present in 
the visible sacrament, then might he have left Uiis fourth book 
unwritten. For afler his doctrine, as I said before, good men do 
not eat Christ's body in the sacrament under the visible signs, for 
because it is not there; and then much less should evil men 
reach it. 

6 In the catholic teaching, all the doctrine of eating of Christ is 
concluded in two manner of eatings, one in the visible sacrament 
sacramental, another spiritual without the sacrament. And be- 
cause in the eating of the visible sacrament St. Paul speaketh of 
unworthy, the same true teaching, to open the matter more clearly 
according to Scripture, noteth unto us three manner of eatings : 
one spiritual only, which only good men do, feeding in faith 
without the visible sacrament. Another is both spiritual and sa- 
cramental, which ako good men only do, receiving the visible sa- 
crament, with a true sincere charitable faith. The third manner 
of eating is sacramental only, which after St. Paul, evil men do 
unworthily, and therefore have Judgment and condemnation, and 
be guilty of our Lord's body, not esteeming our Lord's body 
there. And here ariseth the knot of contention with this author^ 
who sayeth evil men eat but the sacramental bread ; whereunto I 
reply, no more do good men neither, if this author s doctrine of 
the sacrament be true, seeing he will have it but a figure. If this 
author will say the effect is other in good men than in evil men, I will 
not strive therein. But to discuss this matter evidently, we must 
rightly open the tnith,and then must consider the visible sacraments 
as they be of God's ordinance, who directeth us where to seek for 
his gifts and how> whose working, albeit it be not restrained by 
his sacraments, and therefore God may and doth invisibly sanctify 
and save as it pleaseth him, yet he teacheth us of his ordinary 
working in tlie visible sacraments, and ordereth us to seek his 


BOOK gifts of health and life there: whereupon St. AugustiD ^ ooteth 

^^' how baptism among the Christian men of Aphrike was very well 

called health, and the sacrament of Christ's body called life, as 

in which God giveth health and life, if we worthily use them. 

The ordinance of these sacraments is God's work, the very author 

James i. of them, who as he is in himself uniform, as St. James saith, 

without alteration, so, as David saith, his works be true, which is 

as much as uniform, for tnith and uniform answereth together. 

The sab- ^8 ^od is all goodness, so all his works be good. So as con- 7 

suiice of sidering the substance of God*s works and ordinances as they be 

work. in themselves, they be alway uniform, certain, and true, in their 

[1580.] substance, as God ordered them. Among men for whom they be 

wrought and ordered there is variety, good men, evil men, worthy, 

unworthy ; but as St. Paul sayeth, there is but one Lord, one 

Epbes. iv. faith, one baptism. And the parable of the sower, which Christ 

Matth.xiii. declared himself, showeth a diversity of the grounds where the 

seed did fall, but the seed was all one that did fall in the good 

ground, and that did fall in the naughty ground, but it fructified 

only in the good ground ; which seed Christ calleth his word : 

John yl and in the sixth of St. John saith, his word is spirit and life, 

so as by the teaching of Christ, spirit and life may fall upon 8 

naughty men, although for their malice it tarrieth not, nor fructi* 

fieth not in them. And St. Augustine S according hereunto noteth 

how Christ's words be spirit and life, although thou dost carnally 

understand them, and hast no fruit of them, yet so they be spirit 

and life, but not to thee; whereby appeareth the substance of 

God's ordinance to be one, though we in the using of it vary. 

The promises of God cannot be disappointed by roan's infidelity, 9 

Rom. iii. as St. Paul saith ; which place Luther allegeth, to show the unity 

in the substance of baptism, whether it be ministered to good or 

2 Cor. ii. evil. But St. Paul to the Corinthians declareth it notably in these 

words : f^^e be the good savour of Christ in them that hesavedy and 

them that perish. Here St. Paul noteth the savour good, and one 

to diverse men, but after the diversity in men, of diverse effects in 

them, that is to say, the savour of life and the savour of death; 

(Ecume- which saying of St. Paul the Greek scholies, gathered by QScume- 

nias. njyg^ Qp^,^ gQ() declare with similitudes in nature very aptly. The 

dove, they say, and the beetle, shall feed both upon one ointment, 

' August. De Merit, et Remis, Peccat, lib. i. cap. 24. 
S August. In Joan, tract. 27. 


and the beetle die of it, and the dove strengthened by it: the BOOK 
diveraity in the effect, following of the diversity of them that eat, ^^' 
and not of that is eaten, which is alway one. According hereunto 
St. Augustine against the Donatists giveth for a rule the sacra- 
ments to be one in all, although they be not one that receive and 
use them. And therefore to knit up this matter for the purpose, 
I intend and write it : for we must consider the substance of the 
lo visible sacrament of Christ*s body and blood to be always as of 
itself it is by Christ's ordinance ; in the understanding whereof 
this author maketh variance, and would have it by Christ's ordi- 
nance but a 6gure, which he hath not proved ; but and he had 
proved it« then is it in substance but a figure, and but a figure to 
good men. For it must be in substance one to good and bad, and 
so neither to good nor bad this sacrament is otherwise dispensed 
than it is truly taught to be by preaching. 

Wherefore if it be more than a figure, as it is in deed, and if by 
Christ's ordinance it hath present under the form of those visible 
signs of bread and wine, the very body and blood of Christy as 
hath been truly taught hitherto, then is the substance of the sacra- 
ment one always, as the ointment was, whether doves eat of it or 
beetles. And this issue I join with this author, that he shall not An iwiie. 
be able by any learning to make any diversity in the substance of 
this sacrament, whatsoever diversity follow in the effect ; for the 
diversity of the effect is occasioned in them that receive, as before 
is proved. And then to answer this author, I say that only good 
men eat and drink the body and blood of Christ spiritually, as I 
have declared, but all, good and evil, receive the visible sacrament 
of that substance God hath ordained it, which in it hath no vari- 
ance, but is all one to good and evil. 


In this book, because you agree with me almost in the 
whole, I shall not need much to travail in the answer, but 
leaving all your pretty taunts against me, and glorious boast- 
ing of yourself, which neither beseemeth our persons, nor 
bindereth the truth, nor furthereth your part, but by pom- 
pous words to win a vainglory and fame of them that be un- 
learned and have more regud to words than judgment of 
the matter, I shall only touch here and there such things as 
we vary in, or that be necessary for the defence of the 


BOOK First; after the sum of my fourth book collected as 
^^' pleaseth you, at the first dash you be^n with an untrue re- 


port, joined to a subtle deceit or JbUaa^ saying that my chief 
purpose iS; to prove that evil men receive not the body and 
blood of Christ in the sacrament. And hereupon you con- 
clude, that my fourth book is superfluous. But of a false 
antecedent, all that be learned do know that nothing can be 
rightly concluded. Now mine intent and purpose in my 
fourth book, is not to prove that evil men receive not the 
body and blood of Christ in the sacrament, (although that be 
true ;) but my chief purpose is to prove, that evil men eat not 
Christy's flesh nor drink not his blood, neither in the sacra- 
ment nor out of the sacrament ; as on the other side good 
men eat and drink them, both in the sacrament and out of 
the sacrament. 
The word And in the word ^^ sacrament,^ which is of your addition, 
is a subtle^^iZ^oo;, called double understanding. For when 
the sacrament is called only a figure, as you rehearse, 
wherein the body and blood of Christ be only figuratively, 
there the word ^* sacrament"" is taken for the outward signs 
of bread and wine. And after when you rehearse that the 
sacrament is a visible preaching by the tokens and signs of 
bread and wine, in believing and remembering Christy's be- 
nefits, there the word " sacrament^ is taken for the whole 
ceremony and ministration of the sacrament. And so when 
you go about by equivocation of the word to deceive other 
men, you fall into your own snare, and be deceived yourself 
in that you think you convey the matter so craftily, that no 
man can espy you. 

But to utter the matter plainly \nx\\ovLt JbUcuv or cavil- 
lation, I teach that no man can eat Christ^s flesh and drink 
his blood but spiritually, which, forasmuch as evil men do 
not, although they eat the sacramental bread until their beU 
lies be full, and drink the wine until they be drunken, yet 
eat they neither Christ'^s flesh, nor drink bis blood, neither 
in the sacrament nor without the sacrament, because they 
cannot be eaten and drunken but by spirit and faith, where- 
of ungodly men be destitute, being nothing but world and 


This therefore is the sum of my teaching in this fourth BOOK 
book, that in the true ministration of the sacrament Christ is ^^' 
present spiritually, and so spiritually eaten of them that be 
godly and spiritual. And as for the ungodly and carnal, 
they may eat the bread and drink the wine, but with Christ i Cor. vi. 
himself they have no communion or company, and therefore 
neither eat his flesh nor drink his blood, which whosoever 
eateth, hath (as Christ saith himself) life by him, as Christ •'ohn v\. 
hath life by his Father. And to eat Christ s body or drink 
his blood, saith St. Augustine^, is to have life. For whether 
Christ be in the sacrament corporally, as you say, or spiri- 
tually in them that rightly believe in him and duly receive 
the sacrament, as I say, yet certain it is, that there he is not 
eaten corporally, but spiritually. For corporal eating with 
the mouth, is to chaw and tear in pieces with the teeth, after 
which manner Christ's body is of no man eaten, although 
Nicholas the Second made such an article of the faith, and Nicolaus 
compelled Berengarius «, to profess. And therefore al- «*«"««"»• 
though Christ were corporally in the sacrament, yet seeing 
that he cannot be corporally eaten, this book cometh in good 
place and is very necessary, to know that Christ'^s body can- 
not be eaten but spiritually, by believing and remembering 
Chrisfs benefits, and revolving them in our mind, believing 
that as the bread and wine feed and nourish our bodies, so 
Christ feedeth and nourisheth our souls, 
t And ought this to come out of a Christian mane's mouth, 
that ** these be good words, but such as the words of Christ'^s 
*^ supper do not learn us ?^ Do not the words of Christ^s sup- 
per learn us to eat the bread and drink the wine in the re- 
membrance of his death ? Is not the breaking and eating of Lake xxii. 
the bread, after such sort as Christ ordained, a communica- \ q^]\1 
tion of Christy's body unto us ? Is not the cup likewise a com- 
munication of his blood unto us ? Should not then Christian 
people according hereunto, in faith feed upon Christ spiri- 
tually, believing that as the bread and wine feed and nou- 
rish their bodies, so doth Christ their souls with his own 

^ August. In Joan, tract. 26. et l)e verbii Apost, Serm. 3. 


BOOK flesh and blood ? And shall any Christian man now say that 
' " these be good words^ but such as the words in Chrises 
^* supper do not learn us ?*" 

And yet these said words limit not the mystery of the 3 
Supper, forasmuch as that mystery of eating Christ^s flesh 
and drinking his blood extendeth further than the Supper, 
and continueth so long as we be lively members of Christ'^s 
body. For none feed nor be nourished by him, but that be 
lively members of his body, and so long and no longer feed 
they of him, than they be his true members, and receive life 
from him ; for feeding of him is to receive life. 

But this is not that invisible sacrament which you say St. 4 
Augustine speaketh of In Sermone Domini in Monte^ the 
third book. For he calleth there the daily bread, which we 
continually pray for, either corporal bread and meat, which 
is our daily sustenance for the body, or else the visible sacra- 
ment of bread and wine, or the invisible sacrament of God^s 
word and commandments; of the which sacraments G^xl'^s 
word is daily heard, and the other is daily seen. And if by 
the invi^ble sacrament of God'^s word St. Augustine meant 
our nourishment by Christ^s flesh and blood, then be we 
nourished with them as well by God^s word as by the sacra- 
ment of the Lord'^s Supper. 

But yet whosoever told you that St. Augustine wrote this 
in the third book De Semume Domini in Monte i, trust him 
not much hereafter, for he did utterly deceive you. For St. 
Augustine wrote no more but two books De Sermone Domini 
in MonUy and if you can make three of two, as you do here, 
and one of four as you did before in the substances of Christ, 
you be a marvellous auditor, and then had all men need to 
beware of your accounts, least you deceive them. And you 
cannot lay the fault here in the printer, for I have seen it 
written so both by your own hand and by the hand of your 

Now when you have wrangled in this matter as much as 5 
you can, at length you confess the truth, that '* whoso feedeth 
<* upon Christ spiritually must needs be a good man, for only 
«* good men be members of Christ^s mystical body which spi- 


^^ ritual eating is so good a fruit, as it declareth the tree neces- BOOK 
sarily to be good, and therefore it must be and is a cer- ' 

tain conclusion, that only good men do eat and drink the 
** body and blood of Christ spiritually, that is to say, eifec- 
^* tually tolife.^ This you write in conclusion, and this is the 
very doctrine that I teach, and in the same terms : Marry, 
I add thereto, that the eating of Christ'^s body is a spiritual 
eating, and the drinking of his blood is a spiritual drinking, 
and therefore no evil man can eat his flesh, nor drink his 
blood, as this my fourth book teacheth, and is necessary to 
be written. For although neither good nor evil men eat 
Chrisf 8 body in the sacrament under the visible signs, in the 
which he is not but sacramentally, yet the good feed of him 
spiritually, being and inhabiting spiritually within them, al- 
though corporally he be absent and in heaven ; but the evil 
men neither feed upon him corporally nor spiritually, (from 
whom he is both the said ways absent) although corporally 
they eat and drink with their mouths the sacraments of his 
body and blood. 
6 Now where you note here three manner of eatings, and yet Three man- 
but two manner of eatings of Christ, this your noting is very iugg. 
true, if it be truly understand. For there be in deed three 
manner of eatings, one spiritual only, another spiritual and 
sacramental both together, and the third sacramental only, 
and yet Christ himself is eaten but in the first two manner 
of ways, as you truly teach. And for to set out this distinc- 
tion somewhat more plainly, that plain men may understand 
it, it may thus be termed ; that there is a spiritual eating 
only when Christ by a true faith is eaten without the sacra- 
ment. Also there is another eating both spiritual and sacra- 
mental, when the visible sacrament is eaten with the mouth, 
and Christ himself is eaten with a true faith ; the third eat^ 
ing is sacramental only, when the sacrament is eaten, and not 
Christ himself. So that in the first is Christ eaten without 
the sacrament, in the second he is eaten with the sacrament, 
and in the third the sacrament is eaten without him, and 
therefore it is called sacramental eating only, because only 
the sacrament is eaten, and not Christ himself. After the 


BOOK two first manner of ways, godly men do eat who feed and 
live by Christ, the third manner of ways the wicked do eat. 

and therefore, as St. Augustine saith^ they neither eat 
Christ's flesh nor drink his blood, although every day they 
eat the sacrament thereof, to the condemnation of their pre- 
sumption. And for this cause also St. Paul saith not. He 
that eateth Christ's body and drinketh his blood unwor- 
thily shall have condemnation, and be guilty of the Lord'^s 
body ; but he saith. He thai eateth this breads and drinketh 
I Cor. xi. the cup of the Lord unworthily^ shaU be guiUy of the IjotSs 
body^ and eateth afid drinketh his own damnation^ because 
he esteemeth not the Lor is body. 

And here you commit two foul faults. One is, that you 
declare St. Paul to speak of the body and blood of Christ, 
when he spake of the bread and wine. The other fault is, 
that you add to St. Paul's words this word " there," and so 
build your work upon a foundation made by your own self. 
And where you say, that if my doctrine be true, neither 
good men nor evil eat but the sacramental bread, it can be 
none other but very frowardness and mere wilfulness, that 
you will not understand that thing which I have spoken so 
plainly, and repeated so many times. For I say, that good 
men eat the Lord's body spiritually to their eternal nourish- 
ment, whereas evil men eat but the bread carnally to their 
eternal punishment. And as you note of St. Augustine^, 
that baptism is very well called health, and the sacrament of 
Christ's body called life, as in which God giveth health and 
life, if we worthily use them ; so is the sacramental bread 
very well called Christ's body, and the wine his blood, as in 
the ministration whereof Christ giveth us his flesh and blood, 
if we worthily receive them. 

And where you teach how the works of God in themselves 7 

The works be alway true and uniform in all men without diver^ty in 

of Goduni-gQoj and evil, in worthy and unworthy, you bring in this 

mystical matter here clearly without purpose or reason, far 

passing the capacity of simple readers, only to blind their 

^ August. J)e Jlfm^is tt Remiss, Peccator, lib. i. cap. 24. 


eyes withal. By which kind of teaching it is all one work of book 
God to save and to damn^ to kill and to give life, to hate and ^^' 
to love, to elect and to reject ; and to be short, by this kind of 
doctrine God and all his works be one, without diversity ei- 
ther of one work from another, or of his works from his sub- 
stance: and by this means it is all one work of God in 
baptism and in the Lord^s Supper. But all this is spoken 
quite besides the matter, and serveth for nothing but to cast 
a mist before men^s eyes, as it seemeth you seek nothing else 
through your whole book. 

8 And this your doctrine hath a very evil smack, that spirit 
and life should fall upon naughty men, although for their 
malice it tarry not. For by this doctrine you join together Spirit nnd 
in one man Christ and Beliall, the spirit of God and the uj^n^evli 
spirit of the Devil, life and death, and all at one time, which °>^°- 
doctrine I will not name what it is, for all faithful men know 

the name right well and detest the same. And what igno- a Cor. vi. 
ranee can be showed more in him that accounteth himself 
learned, than to gather of Chrisf s words, (where he saith, his John vi. 
words be spirit and life,) that spirit and life should be in evil 
men, because they hear his words. For the words which 
you recite by and by of St. Augustine l, show how vain your 
argument is, when he saith, ^^ The words be spirit and life, 
<^but not to thee that dost carnally understand them.*^ 
What estimation of learning or of truth would you have 
men to conceive of you, that bring such unlearned argu- 
ments, whereof the invalidity appeareth within six lines after? 
which must needs declare in you either much untruth and 
unrincere proceeding, or much ignorance, or at the least an 
exceeding forgetfulness, to say any thing, reproved again 

9 within six lines after. And if the promises of God, as you 
say, be not disappointed by our infidelity, then if evil men 
eat the very body of Christ and drink his blood, they must 
needs dwell in Christ, and have Christ dwelling in them, 
and by him have everlasting life, because of these promises 

of Christ, Qui manducat meam camem ei bibU meum san^ john vi. 
guinem, in me numet ei ego in eo. Et, Qui fnafubscat 

1 Auj^st. In Joan, tract. 97. 

^ I 


BOOK meam eamem et bUnt meum sanguinem^ habet vUam 
^^' etemamn He that eateth my flesh arid drinketh my bloody 
hcUh everlasting life* And, He thai eateth my flesh and 
drinketh my bloodj dweUeth in me and I in him. And yet 
John vi. the third promise. Qui manducat me^ et ipse vivet propter 
me^ He that eateth me^ he shaU aiso live by me. These be 
three promises of God, which if they cannot be disappointed 
by our infidelity^ then if evil men eat the very body of 
Christ and drink his blood, as you say they do in the sacra- 
ment, then must it needs follow, that they shall have ever- 
lasting life, and that they dwell in Christ and Christ in 
them, because our infidelity, say you, cannot disappoint 
God'^s promises. 
The pro- And how agreeth this your saying with that doctrine 
|PJ" **J which you were wont earnestly to teach both by mouth and 
condition, pen, that all the promises of God to us be made under con- 
dition, if our infidelity cannot disappoint God^s promises? 
For then the promises of God must needs have place, whe- 
ther we observe the condition or not. 
One sub- But here you have fetched a great compass and circuit lo 
good and Utterly in vain, to reprove that thing which I never denied, 
^^' but ever affirmed, which is, that the substance of the visible 

sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, (which I say is 
bread and wine in that sacrament, as water is in baptism,) is 
all one substance to good and to bad, and to both a figure. 
But that under the form of bread and wine is corporally 
present by Chrises ordinance his very body and blood, ei- 
ther to good or to ill, that you neither have nor can prove, 
and yet thereupon would you bring in your conclusion here, 
wherein you commit that folly in reasoning, which is called 
petitio principii. 
The issue. What need you to make herein any issue^ when we agree 
in the matter ? For in the substance I make no diversity, 
but I say that the substance of Christ^s body and blood is 
corporally present neither in the good eater nor in the evil. 
And as for the substance of bread and wine, I say they be 
all one, whether the good or evil eat and drink them. As the 
water of baptism is all one, whether Symon Peter or Symon 


Magus be christened therein, and it is one word that to the BOOK 
evil is a savour of death, and to the good is a savour of life; ^^- 
and as it is one sun that shineth upon the good and the > Cor. ii. 
bad, that melteth butter, and maketh the earth hard, one ^^^^' ""' 
flower whereof the bee sucketh honey, and the spider poison, 
and one ointment, as CEcumenius saith, that killeth thecEcume- 
beetle and strengtheneth the dove. Nevertheless as all that °'"*' 
be washed in the water be not washed with the Holy Spirit, 
so all that eat the sacramental bread, eat not the very body 
of Christ. And thus you see that your issue is to no pur- 
pose, except you would fight with your own shadow. 

Now forasmuch as after all this vain and frivolous con- 
suming of words you begin to make answer unto my proofs, 
I shall here rehearse my proofs and arguments, to the intent 
that the reader seeing both my proofs and your confutations 
before his eyes, may the better consider and give his judg- 
ment therein. My fourth book beginueth thus. 

[See vol. ii. p. 426 — 436. " The gross error*"——" holpen 
« thereby -T 

Thus hast thou heard, gentle reader, the grounds and 
proofs which moved me to write the matter of this fourth 
book, that good men only eat Chrises flesh and drink his 
blood. Now shalt thou hear the late bishop^s confutation of 
the same. 


And as for the Scriptures and doctors which this author al- 
legeth to prove that only good men receive the body and blood of 
Christ, I grant it without contention^ speaking of spiritual mandu- 

, cation and with lively faith without the sacrament. But in the 
visible sacrament eril men receive the same that good men do, for 
the substance of the sacrament is by God's ordinance all one. 

9 And if this author would use for a proof, that in the sacrament 
Christ's very body is not present, because evil men receive it, that 
shall be no argument, for the good seed when it was sown did 

3 fsli in the evil ground ; and although Christ dwelleth not in the 
evil man, yet he may be received of the evil man to his condem- 
nation, because he receiveth him not to glorify him as God, as St. 

y2 ^ 


BOOK Paul saith, Non dijudicans corpus Domini^ not esteeming our Lortfs 
body. And to all that ever this author bringeth to prove that 

evil men eat not the body of Christy may be said shortly^ that spi- 
ritually they eat it not besides the sacrament, and in the sacra- 
ment they eat it not effectually to life» but condemnation. And 
that is and may be called a not eating. As they be said not to 
hear the word of God, that hear it not pro6tably. And because 
the body of Christ of itself is ordained to be eaten for life, those 
that unworthily eat to condemnation, although they eat in deed, 
may be said not to eat, because they eat unworthily ; as a thing not 
well done, may be in speech called not done, in respect of the 
good efifect wherefore it was chiefly ordered to be done. And by 
this rule, thou, reader, mayest discuss all that this author bringeth 
forth for his purpose, either out of Scriptures or doctors. For evil 
men eat not the body of Christ to have any fruit by it, as evil men 
be said not to hear God*8 word to have any firuit by it ; and yet as 
they hear the word of spirit and life, and nevertheless perish, so 
evil men eat in the visible sacrament the body of Christ and yet 
perish. And, as I said, thus answereth the Scripture with the par- 
ticular sayings of Cyprian, Athanase^ Basyl^ Hierome, and Am- 5 

As for St. Augustine, which this author all^th De Civitate Dei, 6 
the same St Augustine doth plainly say there in the place alleged, 
how the good and evil receive the same sacrament ; and addeth, 
''but notwith like profit,'* which words this author suppresseth, 
and therefore dealeth not sincerely. As for St. Augustine shall be 
hereafter more plainly declared. Finally, he that receiveth wor- 
thily the body and blood of Christ, hath everlasting life, dwelleth 
in Christ and Christ in him ; he that receiveth unworthily, which 
can be only in the sacrament, receiveth not life, but condemna- 


If you grant without contention that which I do prove, i 
then you must grant absolutely and frankly without any ad- 
dition, that only good men eat and drink the body and blood 
of Christ For bo say all the Scriptures and authors plainly, 
which I have alleged, without your addition of spiritual 
manducation ; and not one of them all say as you do, that 
in the visible sacrament evil men receive the same that good 
men do. 


9 But I make no such vain proofs as you feign in my name, BOOK 
that in the sacrament Christ^s very body is not present, be- ^^' 
cause evil men rec^ve it. But this argument were good, 
although I make no such. Evil men eat and drink the sa- 
crament, and yet they eat and drink not Christ^s flesh and 
blood : Ergo bis flesh and blood be not really and corporally 
in the sacrament. 

3 And when you say that Christ may be received of the 
evil man to his condemnation, is this the glory that you give 
unto Christ, that his whole presence in a man, both with 
flesh, blood, soul, and spirit, shall make him never the bet- 
ter ? and that Christ shall be in him that is a member of the 
Devil P And if an evil man have Christ in him for a time, 
why may he not then have him still dwelling in him ? For 
if he may be in him a quarter of an hour, he may be also an 
whole hour, and so a whole day and an whole year, and so 
shall God and the Devil dwell together in one house. And 
this is the crop that groweth of your sowing, if Christ fall in 
evil men, as good seed falleth in evil ground. 

4 And where you say that all that ever I bring, to prove 
that evil men eat not the body of Christ, may be shortly an- 
swered ; truth it is, as you said in one place of me, that all 
that I have brought may be shortly answered, if a man care 
not what he answer ; as it seemeth you pass not much what 
you answer, so that you may lay on load of words. For 
whereas I have fully proved, as well by authority of Scrip- 
ture as by the testimony of many old writers, that although 
evil men eat the sacramental bread and drink the wine, 
(which have the names of his flesh and blood) yet they eat 

not Christ's very flesh nor drink his blood : your short and Tliat may 
whole answer is this, that evil men may be said not to eat do^'that^ 
Chrises flesh and drink his blood, because they do it not>"°o^^«ll 


fruitfully, as they ought to do ; and that may be called a 
not eating, as they may be said not to hear God^s word, 
that hear it not profitably, and a thing not well done, may 
be in speech called not done, in the respect of the good ef- 
fect. I grant such speeches be sometime used, but very 
rarely ; and when the very truth cometh in discussion, then 



BOOK such paradoxes are not to be used. As, if it come in ques- 
^^* tion, whether a house be builded that is not well builded. 

then the definition of the matter must not be, that it is not 
builded, but that it is builded, although the carpenters and 
other workmen have failed in their covenant and bargain, 
and not builded the house in such sort as they ought to have 
Lake Tiii. done. So our Saviour Christ teacheth that all heard the 
word, whether the seed fell in the highway, or upon the 
stones, or among the thorns, or in the good ground. Where- 
fore when this matter cometh in discussion among the old 
writers, whether evil men eat Christ^s body or no, if the 
truth had been that evil men eat it, the old writers would 
not so precisely have defined the contrary, that they eat not, 
but would have said they eat it, but not effectually, not 
fruitfully, not profitably. But now the authors which I 
have alleged^ define plainly and absolutely, that evil men 
eat not Chrisfs body, without any other addition. But after 
this sort that you do use, it shall be an easy matter for every 
man to say what liketh him, and to defend it well enough, 
if he may add to the Scriptures and doctors words at his 
pleasure, and make the sense after his own phantasy. The 
Scriptures and doctors which I allege do say in plain words, 
as I do say, that evil men do not eat the body of Christ 
nor drink his blood, but only they that have life thereby. 

Now come you in with your addition and gloss, made of 
your own head, putting thereto this word " effectually.^ 
If I should say that Christ was never conceived nor born, 
could not I avoid all the Scriptures that you can bring to the 
contrary, by adding this word ** apparently,^ and defend my 
saying stoutly? And might not the VaIentinians,Marcianists, 
and other that said that Christ died not for us, defend their 
error with addition, as they did, of this word ** putative"^ to 
all the Scriptures that were brought against diem? And 
what heresy can be reproved^ if the heretics may have that 
liberty that you do use, to add of their own heads to the 
D«utxii. words of Scripture? contrary unto God^s word directly, 
who commandeth us to add nothing to his word, nor to take 
any thing away. 


And yet moreover, the authorities which I have brought BOOK 
to approve my doctrine, do clearly cast away your addition^ ^^' 
adding the cause why evil men cannot eat Christ^s flesh nor 
drink his blood. And you have taught almost in the be- 
ginning of your book, that Chrisf s body is but a spiritual 
body, and after a spiritual manner eaten by faith. And 
now you have confessed, that whoso feedeth upon Christ 
spiritually, must needs be a good man. How can you then 
defend now, that evil men eat the body of Christ ? except 
you will now deny that which you granted in the beginning, 
and now have forgotten it, that Christ'^s body cannot be 
eaten but after a spiritual manner by faith. Wherein it is 
marvel, that you having so good a memory, should forget 
the common proverb, Mendacem memcrem esse oportet* 

And it had been more convenient for you to have an- 
swered fully to Cyprian, Athana^us, Basyll, Hierom, and 

5 Ambrose, than when you cannot answer, to wipe your hands 
of them with this slender answer, saying that you have 
answered. And whether you have or no, I refer to the 
judgment of the reader. 

6 And as concerning St. Augustine, De Civitate Dei "", he 
saith, that evil men receive the sacrament of Christ'^s body, 
although it availeth them not. But yet he saith in plain 
words, that we ought not to say that any man eateth the 
body of Christ, that is not in the body. And if the reader 
ever saw any mere cavillation in all his lifetime, let him read 
the chapter of St. Augustine, and compare it to your answer, 
and I dare say he never saw the like. 

And as for the other places of St. Augustine by me al- 
leged, with Origen and Cyrill, for the more ease you pass 
them over with silence, and dare eat no such meat, it is so 
hard for you to digest. And thus have you with post haste 
run over all my Scriptures and doctors, as it were playing 
at the post, with still passing and giving over every game. 
And yet shall you never be able for your part to bring any 
Scripture that serveth for your purpose, except you may be 
suffered to add thereto such words as you please. 

*" August. De Civit. Deiy lib. xxii. cap. 2. 

Y 4 


BOOK Then come you to my questions, wherein I write thu6. 
! — [See vol. ii. p. 486, 487. " And now for corroboration^ 


everlasting life.'*^] 

But to encouDter directly with this author, where he opposeth 
by interrogation, and would be answered, whether an unrepentant 
sinner that receiveth the sacrament bath Christ's body within i 
him or no. Mark^ reader, this question, which declareth that 
this author talketh of the sacrament, not as himself teachetb, but 
as the true teaching is, although he mean otherwise -, for else bow 
could an unrepentant sinner receive Christ's body, but only in the 
sacrament unworthily } and how could he receive it unworthily, 
and it were not there ? But to answer to this question, I answer. 
No : for it foUoweth not, he received him, ergo, he hath him in ^ 
him ; for the vessel being not meet, he departed from him, because 
he was a sinner, in whom he dwelleth not. And where this au- 
thor, now become a quesdonist, maketh two questions of Christ's 
body and bis spirit, as though Christ's body might be divided 
from his spirit, he supposeth other to be as ignorant as himself. 
For the learned man will answer, that an evil man by force of 
God*s ordinance, in the substance of the sacrament, received in 
deed Christ's very body there present, whole Christ God and man, 
but he tarried not, nor dwelled not, nor fructified not in him, 
nor Christ's spirit entered not into that man*s soul, because of the 
malice and unworthiness of him that received. For Christ will not 
a Cor. ▼!. dwell with Beliall nor abide with sinners. And what hath this 
author won now by his forked question ? wherein he seemeth to 
glory, as though be had embraced an absurdity that he hunted for, 
wherein he showeth only his ignorance, who putteth no difference 
between the entering of Christ into an evil man by God's ordi- 
nance in the sacrament, and the dwelling of Christ's spirit in an 
evil man, which by Scripture cannot be, ne is by any catholic man 
affirmed. For St. Paul saith. In him that receiveth unworthily re- 
maineth judgment and condemnation. And yet St. Paul's words 3 
plainly import, that those did eat the very body of Christ which 
did eat unworthily, and therefore were guilty of the body and 
blood of Christ. Now, reader, consider what is before written, 
and thou shalt easily see, what a fond conclusion this author ga- 
thereth in the 97th leaf >^, as though the teaching were, that the 

" [See vol. ii. p. 437.] 


4saine nan ahonld be both the temple of God and the temple BOOK 
of the Deril ; with other tenni, wherewith it Itketh this author to ^^- 
refresh himself, and feigneth an adversary such as he would have, 
but hath none, for no catholic man teacheth so, nor it is not all 
ooe to receive Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him. And 

5 a figure thereof was in Christ's conversation upon earth, who 
tarried not with ail that received him in outward appearance : 

and there is noted a difference that some believed in Christ, and John v. 
yet Christ committed not himself to them. And the Gospel 

6 praiseth them that hear the word of God and keep it, signifying Luke xi. 
many to have the word of God, and not to keep it, as they that 
receive Christ by his ordinance in the sacrament ; and yet because 

they receive him not, according to the intent of his ordinance wor- 
thily, they are so much the worse thereby through their own ma- 
lice. And therefore to conclude this place with the author, Who- 
soever eateth Christ* s flesh and drmketh his blood, futth everlasting 
life, with St. Paul's exposition, if he doth it worthily : or else by 

7 the same St. Paul, he hath condemnation. 


Here the reader shall evidently see your accustomed man- 
I ner^ that when you be destitute of answer, and have none 
other shift, then fall you to scoffing and scolding out the 
matter, as sophisters sometimes do at their problems. But 
as ignorant as I am, you shall not so escape me. First you 
bid the reader mark that I talk of the sacrament, not as I 
teach myself; but I would have the reader here mark, that 
you report my words as you list yourself, not as I speak 
them. For you report my question as I should say, that an 
unrepentant nnner should receive Christ^s body, whereas I 
speak of the receiving of the sacrament of the body, and not 
of the very body itself. 

Moreover I make my question of the being of Christ^s 
a body in an unpenitent nnner, and you turn *^ being^ into 
'* abiding^ because ** being**^ biteth you so sore. First you whether 
confess that an unrepentant sinner, receiving the sacrament, ^ "^°^^ . 
hath not Chrisfs body within him, and then may I say that within him. 
he eateth not Christ^s body, except he eat it without him. 
And although it followeth not, he received Christ, ergo he 


BOOK hath him in him ; yet it foUoweth necessarily^ he receiveth 
' him, ergo he hath him within him for the time of the re- 

ceipt : as a bottomless vessel, although it keep no liquor, yet 
for the time of the receiving it hath the liquor in it. And 
how can Christ depart from an unpenitent sinner, as you 
say he doth, if he have him not at all ? And because of mine 
ignorance, I would fain learn of you, that take upon you to 
be a man of knowledge, how an evil man receiving Chrises 
very body, and whole Christ God and man, as you say an evil 
man doth, and Chrisf s body being such as it cannot be di- 
vided from his spirit, as you say also, how this evil man re- 
ceiving Chrisfs spirit, should be an evil man, for the time 
that he hath Christ'^s spirit within him. Or how can he re- 
ceive Christ^s body and spirit, according to your saying, and 
have them not in him for the time he receiveth them ? Or 
how can Christ enter into an evil man, as you confess, and 
be not in him into whom he entereth at that present time ? 
These be matters of your knowledge, as you pretend, which 
if you can teach me, I must confess mine ignorance. And 
if you cannot, for so much as you have spoken them, you 
must confess the ignorance to be upon your own part. 

And St. Paul saith not, as you untruly recite him, that 3 
in him that receiveth unworthily y remaineth Judgment and 
condemnationy but that he eateth and drinketh condemna- 
1 Cor. zi. tion. And where you say that St. PauFs words plainly im- 
port, that those did eat the very body of Christ which did 
eat unworthily, ever still you take for a supposition the 
thihg which you should prove. For St. Paul speaketh 
plainly of the eating of the bread and drinking of the cup, 
and not one word of eating of the body and drinking of the 
blood of Christ. And let any indifferent reader look upon 
my questions, and he shall see, that there is not one word 
answered here directly unto them, except mocking and 
scorning be taken for answer. 

And where you deny, that of your doctrine it should fol-4 
low that one man should be both the temple of God and 
the temple of the Devil, you cannot deny but that your 
own teaching is, that Christ entereth into evil men when 


they receive the sacrament. And if they be his temple into BOOK 
whom he entereth, then must evil men be his temple for ^^- 
the time they receive the sacrament, although he tarry not 
long with them. And for the same time they be evil men, 
as you say, and so must needs be the temple of the Devil. 
And so it followeth of your doctrine and teaching, that at 
one time a man shall be the temple of God and the temple 

5 of the Devil. And in your figure of Christ upon earth, al- 
though he tarried not long with every man that received 

6 him, yet for a time he tarried with them. And the word of 
God tarrieth for the time with many, which after forget it, 
and keep it not. And then so must it be by these examples 
in evil men receiving the sacrament, that for a time Christ 
must tarry in them, although that time be very short. And 
yet for that time by your doctrine those evil men must be 
both the temples of God and of Belial. 

7 And where you pretend to conclude this matter by the 
authority of St Paul, it is no small contumely and injury a Cor.Ti. 
to St. Paul to ascribe your feigned and untrue gloss unto ' ^^'* '^' 
him, that taught nothing but the truth, as he learned the 

same of Christ. For he maketh mention of eating and 
drinking of the bread and cup^ but not one word of the 
eating and drinking of Christ^s body and blood. Now 
followeth in my book my answer to the papists in this 

[See vol. ii. p. 487, 438. '< But lest they should seem"" 
" of that table.'' 


I In the ninety-seventh leaf and the second column, the author 
b^nneth to traverse the words of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 
and would distinct unworthy eating in the substance of the sa- 
crament received, which cannot be : for our unworthiness cannot 
alter the substance of God*s sacrament, that is evermore all one, 
howsoever we swerve from worthiness to unworthiness. And this 

s I would ask of this author, why should it be a fault in the un- 
worthy not to esteem the Lord's body, when he » taught, if this 
author's doctrine be true, that it is not there at all ? If the bread, 


BOOK f^^ ^^ autbor*8 teaching, be but a figure of Christ'^ body, it is 3 
tV« then but as manna was, the eating whereof unworthily and un- 
faithfully was no guilt of Christ's body. Erasmus o noteth these 
words of St. Paul, " to be guilty of our Lord's body,** to prove the 
presence of Christ's body there, who compareth such an offender 
to the Jews, that did shed Christ's blood maliciously, as those do 
profane it unprofitably, in which sense the Greek commentaries 
do also expound it. And where this author bringeth in the words 
of St. Paul, as it were, to point out the matter : Let a man 
examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup, for 
he that eateth unworthily, 4c. these words of examining and so 4 
eating declare the thing to be one, ordered to be eaten, and all 
the care to be used on our side to eat worthily, or else St. Paul 
To eat. bad not said, and so eat. And when St. Paul saith, eat judgment^ 
[>5^-] und this author will remember himself, he must call judgment 
the effect of that is eaten, and not the thing eaten, for judgment 
is neither spiritual meat nor corporal, but the effect of the eating 
of Christ in evil men, who is salvation to good, and judgment to 
evil. And therefore as good men eating Christ have salvation, so 
evil men eating Christ have condemnation ; and so for the di- 
versity of the eaters of Christ's body, foUoweth, as they be worthy 
and unworthy, the efifect of condemnation or life ; Christ's sacra- 
ment and his work also in the substance of that sacrament being 
always one. And whatsoever this author talketh otherwise in this 
matter is mere trifles. 


As touching mine answer here to the words of St. Paul, 
you would fain have them hid with darkness of speech, that 

John Ui. no man should see what I mean. For, as Christ said, Qui 
male agit^ odit lucem; and therefore that which I have 
spoken in plain speech, you darken so with your obscure 
terms, that my meaning cannot be understand. For I speak 
in such plain terms as all men understand, that when St. 

I Cor. zi. Paul said, he that eateth and drinketh unworthilf/y eateth 
and drinketh his own damnation ; in that place he spake of < 
the eating of the bread and drinking of the cup, and not of 
the corporal eating and drinking of Christ^s flesh and blood. 
These my plain words you do wrap up in these dark terms, 

^ In his Epistle Dedicatory of Alger. [1580.] 


that I ^^ would distinct the unworthy eating in the substance BOOK 
" of the sacrament received.*" Which your words vary so far ^^' 
from mine, that no man can underetand by them my 
meaning, except you put a large comment thereto. For I 
distinct the unworthy eating none otherwise than that I say, 
that when St. Paul speaketh of unworthy eating, he maketh 
mention of the unworthy eating of the bread, and not o£ the 
body of Christ. 

2 And where you ask me this question, why it should be a 

fault in the unworthy not to esteem the Liord^s body, when Unworthy 
it is not there at all : there is in my book a full and plain ^^^"^* 
answer unto your question already made, as there is also to 
your whole book. So that in making of my book I did 
foresee all things that you could object against it : insomuch 
that here is not one thing in all your book, but I can show 
you a suffident answer thereto in one place or other of my 
former book. And in this your question here moved, I refer 
the reader to the words of my book in the same place. 

3 And where, you say, that if the bread be but a figure, it Manna. 
is like manna : as concerning the material bread, truly it is 

like manna, but as concerning Christ himself, he said of 
himself; Not as your^fiUhers did eat manna and are dead : 
he that eateth this bread shaU live for ever. And as con- 
cerning Erasmus, and the Greek commentaries, neither of 

4 them saith upon the place of St. Paul as you allege them john yi. 
to say. And whatsoever it pleaseth you to gather of these 
words, examinifig and so eatings yet St. PauFs words be 

very plain, that he spake not of the eating of the very body 
of Christ, but of the eating of the material bread in the 
sacrament, which is all one, whether the good or evil eat of 
it. And all the care is on our side, to take heed that we eat 
not that bread unworthily. For as the eating of the bread 
unworthily, (not of Christ himself, who cannot be eaten un- 
worthily,} hath the effect of judgment and damnation; so 
eating of the same bread worthily hath the effect of Chrises 
deatb and salvatimi. And as he that eateth the bread 
worthily, may be well said to eat Christ and life; so he that 
eateth it imworthily, may be said to eat the Devil and 


BOO K deatb; as Judas did, into whom with the bread entered Satan. 
For unto such it may be called menaa dtemoniorunif non 

tnensa Domini^ not God's board, but the DeviPs. And so in 
the eaters of the bread worthily or unworthily, foUoweth 
the effect of everlasting life or everlasting death. But in the 
eating of Christ himself is no diversity, but whosoever eateth 

Johu VI, him hath everlasting life. Forasmuch as the eating of 
him can be to none damnation, but salvation, because he is 

John zir. life itself. And whatsoever you babble to the contrary is 
but mere fables, devised without God'^s word or any suffi- 
dent ground. Now followeth mine answer unto such au- 
thors as the papists wrest to their purpose. 

[See vol. ii. p. 488 — 440. " But here may not— 
" flesh and blood.''] 


And yet be goeth about, because he will make all things clear, 

to answer such authors as the papists, he saith, bring for their 

purpose. And first he beginneth with St. Augustine, who writeth 

August!- 113 plainly against this authors mind as I would have devised it, 

if I had no conscience of truth more than I see some have, and 

might with a secret wish have altered St. Augustine as I had list. 

Istne. And therefore here I make a plain issue with this author, that in 

the searching of St. Augustine he hath trusted his man or his friend < 

over n^ligendy in so great a matter, or he hath willingly gone 

about to deceive the reader. For in the place of St. Augustine 

against the Donatists alleged here by this author, which he would 

with the rest assoil <>, St. Augustine hath these formal words in 

Latin : " Corpus Domini et sanguis Domini nihilominus erat etiam 

illis quibus dicebat Apostolus, Qui manducat indigne, judicium i 

sibi tncmducat et bibil ;* which words be thus much in English : 

It was nevertheless the body of our Lord and the blood of our 

<' Lord also unto them to whom the Apostle said. He that eateth 

*' unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself" These be 

St. Augustine's words, who writeth notably and evidently, that 

it was nevertheless the body and blood of Christ to them that 

'^ru^^ received unworthily, declaring that their unworthiness doth not 

them that alter the substance of that sacrament, and doth us to understand 

* August. De Bapt. lib. v. cap. 8. 



therewith the substance of the sacrament to be the body and BOOK 
3 blood of Christ, and nevertheless so, though the receivers be un- 


worthy : wherein this author is so overseen, as I think there was receive ua- 

4 never learned man before that durst in a commonwealth where 7'^'i^'i^* 
learned men be, publish such an untruth as this is^ to be answered 

in a tongue that all men know. Yet Peter Martyr wrote in Latin, 

5 and rejoiceth not, I think, to have his lies in English. 

I will bring in here another place of St. Augustin p to this pur- 

6 pose : " Illud etiam, quod ait^ Qui manduccU carnem meam et 
" hibit sanguinem meum, in me manet et ego in illo, quo modo 
** intellecturi sumus ? Nunquid etiam illos sic poterimus accipere, 
** de quibus dixit Apostolus, quod judicium sibi manducent et 

bibant, quum ipsam carnem manducent et ipsum sanguinem 
bibant ? Nunquid et Judas Magistri venditor et traditor impius, 
quamvis primum ipsum manibus ejus confectum sacramentum 
" carnis et sanguinis ejus cura ceteris discipulis, sicut apertius 
" Lucas Evangelista declarat, manducaret et biberet, mansit in 
*' Christo, aut Christus in eo ? Multi denique, qui vel corde ficto 
" carnem illam manducant et sanguinem bibunt, vel quum man- 
** ducaverint et biberint, apostate fiunt, nunquid maneut in 
** Christo, aut Christus in eis ? Sed profecto est quidam modus 
*' manducandi illam carnem et bibendi ilium sanguinem, quomodo 
" qui manducaverit et biberit, in Christo manet et Christus in eo. 
" Non ergo quocunque modo quisque manducaverit carnem 
*' Christ! et biberit sanguinem Christi, manet in Christo, et in illo 
" Christus, sed certo quodam modo, quem modum utique ipse 
" videbat quando ista dicebat." The English of these words is 
this. " That same that he also saith : Who eateih my flesh and 
" drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him, how shall we 
understand it } May we understand also them of whom the Apo- 
stle spake, that they did eat to themselves and drink judgment, 
'* when they did eat the same flesh and drink the same blood, the 
flesh itself, the blood itself ? Did not Judas, the wicked seller and 
betrayer of his Master, when he did eat and drink, as Lucas the 
Evangelist declareth, the first sacrament of the flesh and blood 
of Christ made with his own hands, dwell in Christ, or Christ in 
him ? Finally, many that with a feigned heart eat that flesh and 
drink the blood, or when they have eaten and drunken become 
apostates, do not they dwell in Christ, or Christ in them ? But 
P Augustin. Dt Verb, Damn. Senno. xi. 









" undoubtedly tkere is a oert«n manner of eating that flesh and 
" drinking that blood, after which manner whosoever eateth and 
** drinketh, dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him. Therefore, not in 
** whatsoever manner any man eateth the flesh of Christ and drink- 
** eth the blood of Christ, he dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him, 
'* but after a certain manner, which manner he saw when he said 
" these words.*' This is the sense of St. Augustine's saying in 
Latin, whereby appeareth the faith of St. Augustine to be in the sa- 
crament to be eaten and drunken the very body and blood of Christ, 
which for the substance of the sacrament evil men receive as good 
men do, that is to say, as St. Augustine doth point it out by his 
words, the same flesh and the same blood of Christ, with such 
an expression of speech, as he would exclude all difference that 
device of figure might imagine, and therefore saith " ipsam camem, 
" ipsum sanguinem/* which aignifieth the selfsame in deed, not by 
name only, as the author of the book would have St. Augustine 
understanded ; and when that appeareth, as it is most manifest, 
that Judas received the same being wicked that good men do, 
how the same is before the receipt by God's omnipoteucy present 
in the visible sacrament, and so not received by the only instru- 
ment of faith, which in evil men is not lively, but by the instru- 
ment of the mouth, wherein it entereth with the visible element, 
and yet, as St. Augustine saith, dwelleth not in him that so un- 
worthily recdveth, because the effect of dwelling of Christ is not in 
him that receiveth by such a manner of eating as wicked men use. 
Whereby St. Augustine teacheth the diverse effect to ensue of the 
diversity of the eating, and not of any diversity of that which is 
eaten, whether the good man or eril man receive the sacrament. 

If I would here encumber the reader, I could bring forth many 
mo places of St. Augustine to the confusion and reproof of this 
author's purpose ; and yet notwithstanding to take away that he 
might say of me, that I weigh not St. Augustine, I think good 7 
to allege and bring forth the judgment of Martin Bucer, touching 
St. Augustine, who understandeth St. Augustine dear contrary to 
this author, as may plainly appear by that the said Bucer writeth 
in few words in his Epistle Dedicatory of the great work he 
sent abroad of his Enarrations of the Gospels, where his Judgment 
of St. Augustine in this point he uttereth thus : *' Quoties scribit 
*' etiam Judam ipsum corpus et sanguinem Domini sumpsisse ? 
" Nemo itaque auetoritate S. Fatrum dicet Christum in sacra 



*' Coena absentem esse :** the sense id English is this : ** How often BOOK 
writeth he (speaking of St. Augustine) Judas also to have re- ^^' 
ceived the self body and blood of our Lord > No man therefore 
*' by the authority of the fathers can say Christ to be absent in 
'* the holy Supper.** Thus saith Bucer, who understandeth St. 
Augustine as I have before alleged him^ and gathereth thereof 
a conclusion, that no man can by the fathers* sayings prove Christ 
to be absent in the holy Supper. And therefore, by Bucer*s judg- 
ment^ the doctrine of this author can be in no wise catholic, as 
dissenting from that hath been before taught and believed. Whe- 
ther Bucer will still continue in that he hath so solemnly pub- 
lished to the world, and by me here alleged, I cannot tell ; and 
whether he do or no, it maketh no matter : but thus he hath 
taught in his latter judgment, with a great protestation that he 
speaketh without respect other than to the truth ; wherein^ because 
he seemed to dissent from his friends, he saith, ^iXor fihf lioKpdrrft, 
iKkh tfukrarrf ^ dkriStia, rifuaroTTi ^ ciocXi^a-m : which words have an 
imitation of an older saying, and be thus much to say : ** Socrates 
" is my friend, truth is my best beloved^ and the Church most re- 
'' garded.*' And with this Bucer closeth his doctrine of the sacra- 
ment, after he knew all that Zuinglius and CEcolampadius could 
say in the matter. 

And here I will leave to speak of Bucer, and bring forth Theo- 
doretus^, a man most extolled by this author^ who saith plainly in 
8 his Commentaries upon St. Paul, how Christ delivered to Judas 
his precious body and blood, and declareth further therewith in 
that sacrament to be the truth. So as this author can have no 
foundation upon either to maintain his figurative speech, or the 
matter of this fourth book, which his words plainly impugn. St. 
Hierome, in his Commentaries upon the Prophet Malachie, hath HieioDy. 
^ first this sentence : " Polluimus panem, id est corpus Christi, ™^* 
** quando indigne accedimus ad altare, et sordidi mundum sangui- 
" nem bibiraus ;" " We defile the breads that is to say, the body of 
" Christy when we come unworthy to the altar, and being filthy 
'' drink the clean blood.** Thus saith St. Hierome, who scuth, men 
filthy drink the clean blood : and in another place after the same, 
St. Hierome saith : " Polluit Christi roysteria indigne accipiens 
" corpus ejus et sanguinem,** ** He that unworthily receiveth the 
« body and blood of Christ, defileth the mysteries.** Can any words 

^ Theodoretus, in £p. 2 Cor. xi. 


BOOK be more manifest and evident to declare St. Hierome's mind, how 
^^* in the visible sacrament men receive unworthily, which be evil 
men, the body and blood of Christ. 


An issue. In this point I will join a plain issue with you, that I 
neither willingly go about to deceive the reader in thei 
searching of St. Augustine, as you use to do in every place, 
nor I have not trusted my man or friend herein, as it 
seemeth you have done overmuch, but I have diligently 
expended and made the matter myself. For although in 
such weighty matters of Scripture and ancient authors you 
must needs trust your men, (without whom I know you can 
do very little, being brought up from your tender age in 
other kinds of study,) yet I, having exercised myself in the 
study of Scripture and divinity from my youth, whereof I 
give most hearty lauds and thanks to God, have learned 
now to go alone, and do examine, judge, and write all such 
weighty matters myself, although I thank Grod I am nei- 
ther so arrogant nor so wilful, that I will refuse the good 
advice, counsel, and admonition of any man, be he man or 
master, friend or foe. 

But as concerning the place alleged by you out of St. Au- a 
gustine, let the reader diligently expend mine whole answer 
to St. Augustine, and he shall, I trust, be fully satisfied. 
For St. AugusUne, in his book De Baptismo cofUra Dona- 
iist€i8% as I have declared in my book, speaketh of the 
morsel of bread and sacrament, which Judas also did eat, as 
Str Augustine saith. And in this speech he considered, as 
he writeth Contra Maximinum^ not what it is, but what it 
ognifieth, and therefore he expresseth the matter by Judas 
more plainly in another place, saying, that he did eat the 
bread of the Lord, not the bread being the Lord, as the 
other apostles did, signifying thereby that the evil eat the 
bread, but not the Lord himself. As St. Paul saith that 
they eat and drink panem et calicem Domini^ the bread and 

' August. De Bapt. am, Don. lib. v. cap. 8. 
' August. In Joan, tract. 59. 


the cup of the Lord, and not that they eat the Lord him- BOOK 

3 self. And St. Augustine saith, not as you feign of him, ^^' 
that the substance of this sacrament is the body and blood 

of Christ, but the substance of this sacrament is bread and 
wine^ as water is in the sacrament of baptism, and the same 
be all one, not altered by the unworthiness of the receivers. 
And although St. Augustine in the words by you recited, 
call the sacrament of Christy's body and blood his body and 
blood; yet is the sacrament no more but the sacrament 
thereof, and yet* is it called the body and blood of Christ; 
as sacraments have the names of the things whereof they be 
sacraments, as the same St. Augustine teacheth most plainly, 
Jd Bonifacium. 

4 And I have not so far overshot myself or been overseen, 
that I would have attempted to publish this matter, if I 
had not beforehand excussed the whole truth therein from 
the bottom. But because I myself am certain of the truth, 
which hath been hid these many years, and persecuted by 
the papists with fire and fagot, (and should be so yet still if 
you might have your own will,) and because also I am de- 
sirous that all my countrymen of England, unto whom I 
have no small cure and charge to tell the truth, should no 
longer be kept from the same truth, therefore have I pub- 
lished the truth which I know in the English tongue, to the 
intent that I may edify all by that tongue, which all do 
perfectly know and understand. Which my doing it seem- 
etb you take in very evil part, and be not a little grieved 
thereat, because you would rather have the light of truth 
hid still under the bushel, than openly to be set abroad that 
all men may see it. And I think that it so little grieveth 

5 M. Peter Martyr, that his book is in English, that he would 
wish it to be translated likewise into all other languages. 

6 Now where you gather of the words of St. Augustine, The self- 
De verbis Domini^, that both the evil and good eat one that was 
body of Christ, the selfsame in substance, excluding all dif- c>^dfi^ 
fereoce that device of figure might imagine ; to this I an- sihle, is 
swer, that although you express the body of Christ with q^^^I 

* August. De verbis Domini, Serin. 11. people. 



BOOR what terms you can devise^ catling it, as you do in deed, the 
flesh that was born of the Virgin Mary, the same flesh, the 
flesh itself, yet I confess that it is eaten in the sacrament. 
And to express it yet more plainly than peradventure you 
would have me, I say, that the same visible and palpable 
flesh that was for us crucified, and appeared after his resur- 
rection, and was seen, felt, and groped, and ascended into 
heaven, and there sitteth at his Father^s right hand, and at 
the last day shall come to judge the quick and the dead; 
that selfsame body, having all the parts of a man'^s body, in 
good order and proportion, and being visible and tangible, 
I say is eaten of Christian people at his holy Supper. What 
will you now require more of me concerning the truth of the 
body ? I suppose you be sorry that I grant you so much, 
and yet what doth this help you ? For the diversity is not in 
the body, but in the eating thereof ; no man eating it car- 
nally, but the good eating it both sacramentally and spiritu- 
ally, and the evil only sacramentally, that is to say, figura- 
tively. And therefore hath St. Augustine these words, ^* certo 
** quodam modo,^ ^^ after a certain manner,^ because that 
the evil eat the sacrament, which after a certain manner is 
called the very body of Christ, which manner St. Augustine 
himself declareth most truly and plainly in an epistle Ad Bani- 
Jbcium ", saying : ^^ If sacraments bad not some similitude 
** or likeness of those things whereof they be sacraments, 
they could in no wise be sacraments. And for their simili- 
tude and likeness, they have commonly the name of the 
things whereof they be sacraments. Therefore after a 
certain manner the sacrament of Christ'^s body is Chrisf s 
body, the sacrament of Christ'^s blood is Christ^s blood.*" 
This epistle is set out in my book, the sixty-fourth leaf ^, which 
I pray the reader to look upon for a more full answer unto 
this place. And after that manner Judas and such like did 
eat the morsel of the Lord^s bread, but not the bread that 
is the Lord, but a sacrament thereof which is called the 
Lord, as St. Augustine saith. So that with the bread entered 
not Christ with his spirit into Judas, as you say he doth 
" August. Ad Banifaciumy Ep. 33. * [See vol. ii. p. 385.] 


iDto the wicked, but Satan entered into him, as the BOOK 

... . IV 

Gospel tesufieth. And if Christ entered then into Judas 

with the bread, as you write, then the Devil and Christ John ziii. 
entered into Judas both at once. 

7 As concerning M. Bucer, what mean you to use his au- Master Bu- 
thority, whose authority you never esteemed heretofore?*^**"' 
And yet Bucer varieth much from your error, for he denieth 
utterly that Christ is really and substantially present in the 
bread, either by conversion or inclusion ; but in the minis- 
tration he affirmeth Christ to be present, and so do I also, 

but not to be eaten and drunken of tliem that be wicked 
and members of the Devil^ whom Christ neither feedeth, nor 
hath any communion with them. And to conclude in few 
words the doctrine of M. Bucer, in the place by you al- 
leged, he dissenteth in nothing from (Ecolampadius and 
Zuinglius. Wherefore it seemeth to me somewhat strange^ 
that you should allege him for the confirmation of your 
untrue doctrine, being so clearly repugnant unto his doc- 

8 The words of Theodoretus, if they were his, be so far Theodore- 
from your report, that you be ashamed to rehearse his^*' 
words as they be written, which when you shall do, you shall 

be answered. But in his Dialogues he declareth in plain 
terms not only the figurative speech of Christ in this matter, 
but also wherefore Christ used those figurative speeches, as 
the reader may find in my book the 67th, 68th, 69th, 
and 70th leaves >'. By which manner of speech it may be 
said, that Christ delivered to Judas his body and blood, 
when he delivered it him in a figure thereof. 

9 And as concerning St. Hierome, he calleth the mysteries Hicrony- 
or mystical bread and wine, Chrises flesh and bloody as 
Christ called them himself; and the eating of them, he calleth 
the eating of Christy's flesh and blood, because they be sacra- 
ments and figures which represent unto us his very flesh 
and blood. And all that do eat the said sacraments, be said 
to eat the body of Christ, because they eat the thing which 
is a representation thereof. But St. Hierome meant not, 

y [Sec vol. ii. p. 388 — 393.] 




BOOK that evil men do in deed eat the very body of Christ, for 
^^' then he would not have written upon Esaie, Hieremie, and 
Osee the contrary, saying, that heretics and evil men neither 
eat his flesh nor drink his bloody which whosoever eateth 
and drinketh, hath everlasting life. ^^ Non comedunt camem 
** Jesu,^ saith he upon Esai, *^ neque bibunt sanguinem ejus, 
^< de quo ipse loquitur : Qui comedit camem meam et bibU 
*^ meum sanguinem^ habet vitam cetemam ^J* And yet he 
that cometh defiled unto the visible sacraments, defileth not 
only the sacraments, but the contumely thereof pertaineth 
also unto Christ himself, who is the author of the sacra- 
ments. And, as the same St. Hierom saith, ^' Dum sacra- 
'^ menta violantur, ipse cujus sunt sacramenta violatur.^ 
*^ When the sacraments,^ saith he, <^ be violated, then is he 
^^ violated also to whom the sacraments appertain \'^ 
Now hear what followeth in the order of my book. 

[See vol. ii. p. 440, 441. " And as before'' " for 

their party.''] 



And yet these plain places of authority, dissembled of purpose, 
or by igDorance passed over, this author, as though all things were 
by him clearly discussed to his intent, would by many conceits 
furnish and further his matters, and therefore playeth with our i 
Lady's smiling, rocking her child, and many good mowes so un- 
seemly for his person, as it maketh me almost forget him and 
myself also. But with such matter he filleth his leaves, and 
forgetting himself^ maketh mention of the Catechism by him 2 
translate, the original whereof confuteth these two parts of this 
book in few words, being printed in Germany, wherein, besides 
the matter written, is set forth in picture the manner of the min- 
istering of this sacrament ; where is the altar with candle light set 
forth, the priest ap|)arelled after the old sort, and the man to 
receive, kneeling, bare head, and holding up his hands, whilst the 
priest ministereth the host to his mouth, a matter as clear con- 
trary to the matter of this book, as is light and darkness, which 
DOW this author would colour with speeches of authors in a book 
written to instruct rude children^ which is as slender an ez- 

* Hieron. In Eioiamf cap. ^, * Hieron. In Malackiam, cap. 1. 


euae as ever was heard, and none at all, when the oriffinal U BOOK 
looked on. *^' 

3 Emissene, to stir up men*8 devotion coming to receive this 
sacrament, requireth the root and foundation thereof in the mind Emisaenas. 
of roan as it ought to be, and therefore exhorteth men to take 

the sacrament with the hand of the heart, and drink with the 
draught of the inward man, which men must needs do that will 
worthily repair to this feast. And as Emissene speaketh these 
devout words of the inward office of the receiver, so doth he in 
declaration of the mystery show, how the invisible priest with his 
secret power by his word doth convert the visible creatures into 
the substance of his body and blood, whereof I have before en- 
treated. This author upon these words devoutly spoken by Emissen, 
saith, there is required no corporal presence of Christ's precious 
body in the sacrament, continuing in his ignorance what the 

4 word ''corporal** roeaneth. But to speak of Emissene, if by his 
faith the very body and blood of Christ were not present upon 
the altar, why doth he call it a reverend altar ? why to be fed 
there with spiritual meats ? and why should faith be required to 
look upon the body and blood of Christ, that is not there on the 
altar, but, as this author teacheth, only in heaven } and why should 
he that cometh to be fed, honour these mysteries there ? and why 
should Emissene allude to the hand of the heart and draught of 
the inward man, if the hand of the body and draught of the out- 
ward man had none office there ) All this were vain eloquence 
and a mere abuse and illusion, if the sacramental tokens were 
only a figure. And if there were no presence but in figure, why 
should not Emissene rather have followed the plain speech of the 
angel to the women that sought Christ, Jesum qiueritis — non est 
hic^ Ye seek Jesu9—he is not here^ and say as this author doth, 
This is only a figure, do no worship here, go up to heaven, and 

5 down witli the altar for fear of illusion ; which Emissene did not, 
but called it a reverend altar, and inviteth him that should receive, 
to honour that food, with such good words as before, so far dis- 
crepant from this author's teaching, as may be ; and yet from him 
he taketh occasion to speak against adoration. 


I Here, for lack of good matter to answer, you fall again to 
your accuBtomed manner, trifling away the matter with 



BOOK mocking and mowing. But if you thought your doctrine 
_JXl_good, and mine erroneous, and had a zeal to the truth, and 

to quiet men'^s consciences, you should have made a sub- 
stantial and learned answer unto my words. For dallying 
and playing, scolding and mowing, make no quietness in 
men^s consciences. And all men that know your conditions, 
know right well, that if you had good matter to answer, you 
would not have hid it, and passed over the matter with 
such trifles as you use in this place. And St. John Chry- 
sostome you skip over, either as you saw him not, or as you 
cared not how slenderly you left the matter. 

The Gate- And as concerning the Catechism, I have sufficiently an- 3 
swered in my former book. But in this place may appear 
to them that have any judgment, what pithy arguments 
you make, and what dexterity you have in gathering 
of authors^ minds, that would gather my mind and make 
an argument here, of a picture, neither put in my book, nor 
by me devised, but invented by some fond painter or carver, 
which paint and grave whatsoever their idle heads can fancy. 
You should rather have gathered your argument upon the 
other side, that I mislike the matter, because I left out of 
my book the picture that was in the original before ^. And 
I marvel you be not ashamed to allege so vain a matter 
against me, which in deed is not in my book, and if it were, 
yet were it nothing to the purpose. And in that Catechism 
I teach not, as you do, that the body and blood of Christ is 
contained in the sacrament being reserved, but that in the 
ministration thereof we receive the body and blood of Christ, 
whereunto if it may please you to add or understand this 
word, ** spiritually,'' then is the doctrine of my Catechism 
sound and good in all men's ears, which know the true doc- 
trine of the sacraments. 

Emiiiene. As for Emissene, you agree here with me, that he speak- 3 
eth not of any receiving of Christ's body and blood with 
our mouths, but only with our hearts. And where you say, 

^ [FaC'Siroiles, both of the engraving which appeared in the original 
Latin Catechism, and of that which was substituted for it in the Eng- 
lish translation, are subjoined. Few persons will see transubstautiatiou 


that you liave entreated before, how the inTinble priest with BOO K 
lus secret power doth convert the visible creatures into the ' 

substance of his body and blood ; I have in that same place 
made answer to those words of Emissene, but most plainly 

in either; but not even Gnrdytier's ingenuity could extract an argu- 
ment in lt» favour from the latter. The plates are the same which were 
used in the reprint of Craomer's Catechism at Oxford, 18S9. See 
Preface to thM edition, p. xx.] 

[F(H>nniU« of the Engraving prefixed to the ExpoHtion of tlie 
Lord's Supper in the original Latin Catecltitm of Jtutu$ Jon<a.'\ 

]Fae-nmiU of the Engraving ahich teat aUtiluted for Ihe above 
in the Englith tramlation.] 



BOOK of all in my former book, the twenty-fifth leaf<^. And Emis- 
• sene saith not that Christ is corporally present in the sacra- 

ment, and thereof you be not ignorant, although you do 
pretend the contrary, which b somewhat worse than igno- 
Corporal. And what this word ^^ corporal"^ meaneth, I am not igno-4 
rant ; Mary what you mean by ^* corporal^ I know not ; and 
the opening thereof shall discuss the whole matter. Tell 
therefore plainly without dissimulation or coloured words, 
what manner of body it is that Christ hath in the sacra- 
ment ; whether it be a very and perfect man^s body, with 
all the members thereof, distinct one from another, or no ; 
for that understand I to be a man^s corporal body, that 
hath all such parts, without which may be a body, but no 
perfect man^s body. So that the lack of a finger maketh a 
lack in the perfection of a man^s body. Mary if you will 
make Christ such a body as bread and cheese is, wherein 
every part is bread and cheese without form and distinction 
of one part from another, I confess mine ignorance, that I 
know no such body to be a man^s body. Now have I showed 
mine ignorance; declare now your wit and learning. For 
sure I am, that Christ hath all those parts in heaven, and if 
he lack them in the sacrament, then lacketh he not a little 
of his perfection. And then it cannot be one body, that 
hath parts and hath no parts. 

And as concerning the words of Emissene, calling the 5 
altar a reverend altar, those words prove no more the real 
presence of Christ in the altar, than the calling of the font 
of baptism a reverend font, or the calling of marriage 
reverend matrimony, should conclude that Christ were cor- 
porally present in the water of baptism, or in the celebra- 
tion of matrimony. And yet is not Christ clearly absent 
in the godly administration of his holy Supper, nor present 
only in a figure (as ever you untruly report me to say) but 
by his omnipotent power he is effectually present by spi- 
ritual nourishment and feeding, as in baptism he is likewise 
present by spiritual renewing and regenerating. Therefore 

^ [See vol. ii. p. 323.] 



where you would prove the corporal presence of Christ, by BOOK 
the reverence that is to be used at the altar, as Emissene ^^- 
teacheth ; with no less reverence ought he that is baptized 
to come to the font, than he that receiveth the communion 
cometh to the altar. And yet is that no proof that Christ 
is corporally in the font And whatsoever you have here 
said of the coming to the altar, the like may be said of 
coming to the font. For although Christ be not corporally 
there, yet, as St. Hierom saith, if the sacraments be violated, 
then is he violated whose sacraments they be. Now followeth 
after in my book, the manner of adoration in the sacra- 

[See vol. ii. p. 441 — 448. " Now it is requisite^ 
" nothing there at all.""] 


As toucbing the adoration of Christ's flesh in the sacrament, 
(which adoration is a true confession of the whole man, soul and 
body, if there be opportunity, of the truth of God in his work,) is 
in my Judgment well set forth in the Book of Common Prayer, 
where the priest is ordered to kneel and make a prayer in his own 
and the name of all that shall communicate, confessing therein 
that is prepared there; at which time nevertheless that is not 
adored that the bodily eye seeth, but that which faith knoweth to 

s be there invisibly present, which^ and there be nothing, as this au- 
thor now teacheth, it were not well. I will not answer this au- 

I thor*s eloquence^ but his matter, where it might hurt. 

Whereas I have showed what idolatry was committed by 
means of the papistical doctrine, concerning adoration of the 
sacrament, because that answer to my reasons you cannot, 
and confess the truth you will not, therefore you run to your 
usual shifty passing it over with a toy and scoff, saying that 
I you will not answer mine eloquence^ but the matter, and yet 
in deed you answer neither of both, but under pretence of 
mine eloquence you shift off the matter also. And yet 
other eloquence I used not, but the accustomed speech of 
the homely people, as such a matter requireth. 





And where you say^ that it were not well to worship Christ 
in the sacrament, if nothing be there, (as you say I teach) 3 
if you mean that Christ cannot be worshipped but where he 
is corporally present, as you must needs mean, if your rea- 
son should be to purpose, then it foUoweth of your saying, 
that we may not worship Christ in baptism, in the fields, 
in private houses, nor in no place else, where Christ is not 
corporally and naturally present. But the true teaching of 
the holy catholic Church is, that although Christ, as concern- 
ing his corporal presence, be continually resident in heaven, 
yet he is to be worshipped not only there, but here in earth 
also, of all faithful people, at all times, in all places, and in 
all their works. Hear now what foltoweth further in my 

[See vol. ii. p. 44?S, 444. " But the papists^ " con- 

" secrated bread.""] 


As in the wrong report of St. Augustine, who speaking of the i 
adoration of Christ*s flesh given to be eaten, doth so fashion his 
speech, as it cannot with any violence be drawn to such an un- 
derstanding, as though St. Augustine should mean of the adoring 
of Christ's flesh in heaven, as this author would have it. St. Au- 
gustine speaketh of the giving of Christ's flesh to us to eat^ and 
declareth after, that he nieaneth in the visible sacrament, which a 
must be invisibly understanded and spiritually, not as the Caper- 
naites did understand Christ*s words^ carnally to eat that body cut 
in pieces, and therefore there may be no such imaginations to eat 
Christ's body after the manner he walked here, nor drink his 
blood HS it was shed upon the cross, but it is a mystery and sacra- 
ment that is godly of God*s work supernatural above man's under- 
standing, and therefore spiritually understanded shall give life, 
which life carnal understanding must needs exclude. And by 
these my words, I think I declare truly St. Augustine's meaning of 
the truth of this sacrament, wherein Christ giveth truly his flesh 
to be eaten, the flesh he spake of before, taken of the Virgin. For 
the spiritual understanding that St. Augustine speaketh of, is not 
to exclude the truth of God's work in the sacrament, but to ex- 
clude carnal imagination from musing of the manner of the work. 


which is in mystery such as a carnal man cannot comprehend. In BOOK 
which matter, if St. Augustine had had such a faith of the visible ^^- 
sacrament^ as this author saith himself hath now of late, andcall- 
eth it catholic, St. Augustine would have uttered it as an expo- 
sitor plainly in this place^ and said, * There is but a figure of Christ's 

3 ' body, Christ's body and flesh is in heaven, and not in this visible 
'sacrament; Christ's speech, that was esteemed so hard, was but 
' a figurative speech ; and where Christ said. This is my body, he 
' meant only of the figure of his body ;' which manner of sayings St. 
Augustine useth not in this place, and yet he could speak plainly, 
and so doth he, declaring us first the truth of the flesh that Christ 
giveth to be eaten, that is to say, the same flesh that he took of 
the Virgin. And yet because Christ giveth it not in a visible man- 

4 ner, nor such a manner as the Capernaites thought on, nor such 
a manner as any carnal man can conceive, being also the flesh in 
the sacrament given, not a common flesh, but a lively, godly, and 
spiritual flesh : therefore St. Augustine useth words and speech, 
whereby he denieth the gift of that body of Christ which we did 
see, and of the blood that was shed, so as by affirmation and de- 
nial so near together of the same to be given, and the same not 
to be given, the mystery should be thus far opened, that for 
the truth of the thing given, it is the same, and touching the 
manner of the giving, and the quality of the flesh given^ it is not 
the same. And because it is the same^ St. Augustine saith before, 
we must worship it, and yet because it is now an hidden godly 
mystery, we may not have carnal imaginations of the same, but 
godly, spiritually, and invisibly understand it. 


1 As concerning the words of St. Augustine, which you say I 
do wrong report, let every indifferent reader judge who 
maketh a wrong report of St. Augustine, you or I. For I have 
reported his words as they be, and so have not you. For St. 

2 Augustine saith not<^, that Christ''8 body is eaten in the visible 
sacrament, as you report, but that Christ hath given us a 
sacrament of the eating of his body, which must be under- 
stand invisibly and spiritually, as you say truly in that 
point. But to the spiritual eating, is not required any local 

d August. In PtaL 98. 


BOOK or corporal presence in the sacrament, nor St. Augustine 
' saith not so, as you in that point unjustly report him. And 
although the work of God in his sacraments be effectual and 
true, yet the working of Gt)d in the sacraments is not his 
working by grace in the water, breads and wine, but in them 
that duly receive the same ; which work is such as no carnal 
man can comprehend. 

And where you say, that if St. Augustine had meant as 1 3 
do, he would in this place have declared a figure, and have 
said, that here is but a figure, and we eat only a figure, but 
Christ himself is gone up into heaven and is not here ; it is 
too much arrogancy of you, to appoint St. Augustine his 
words, what he should say in this place^ as you would lead 
an hound in a line where you list, or draw a bear to the 
stake. And here still you cease not untruly to report me. 
For I say not that in the Lord^s Supper is but a figure, or 
that Christ is eaten only figuratively, but I say that there is 
a figure and figurative eaUng. And doth not St. Augus- 
tine sufficiently declare a figure in Christ^s words, when he 
saith, that they must be understand spiritually ? And what 
man can devise to express more plainly, both that in Christy's 
speech is a figure, and that his body is not corporally pre- 
sent and corporally eaten, than St. Augustine doth in a 
thousand places ; but specially in his Epistle Ad Bonifh^ 
cium^ Ad Dardanum^ Ad Janfiarium^ De doctrina Chris- 
tiana, De CcUechisandis rudibtis^ In quest super Levit.y De 
Civitate Dei^ Contra Adamantiumj Contra adversarium le- 
gis et prophetarum^ In Epistdam et EvangeUum Johannisy 
In Semume ad infantes^ et De verbis apostoli. The flesh of 
Christ is a true flesh, and was bom of a woman, died, rose 
again, ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand 
of his Father, but yet is he eaten of us spiritually ; and in 
the manner of the eating there is the mystery and secret, 
and yet the true work of Grod. 

And where you understand the invisible mystery, which 4 
St. Augustine speaketh of, to be in the diversity of the body 
of Christ seen or not seen, you be far deceived. For St. 
Augustine speaketh of the mystery that is in the eating of 


the body, and not in the diversity of the body, which in BOOK 
substance is ever one without diversity. The meaning ^^' 
therefore of St. Augustine was this, that when Christ said. 
Except you eat the flesh of the San of fnan, you shall no^ John ti. 
have life in you^ he meant of spiritual and not carnal eating 
of his body. For if he had intended to have described the 
diversity of the manner of Christy's body visible and invirible, 
he would not have said ^' this body which you see,^ but < this 
* body in such manner as you see it,^ or in such like terms, 
< you shall not eat.^ But to eat ChrisCs flesh, saith St. Augus- 
tine, is fruitfully to remember that the same flesh was cru- 
cified for us. And this is spiritually to eat his flesh and to 
drink his blood c. 


I And because St. Hierome who was of St. Augustine*8 time, 
writeth in his Commentaries upon St Paul, Ad Ephedos, that may 
serve for the better opening hereof, I will write it in here. The 
words be these, " The blood and flesh of Christ is two ways un- 
** derstanded j either the spiritual and godly, of which himself said, 
Myfiesh is verily meat, and my blood is verily drink ; and, Unleu 
ye eat myjlesh aitd drink my blood, ye shall not have everlasting 
'* U/e : or the flesh which was crucified, and blood which was 
** shed with the spear. According to this divbion, the diversity 
** of flesh and blood is taken in Christ's saints ; that there is one 
** flesh that shall see the salvation of God, another flesh and blood 
'* that cannot possess the kingdom of heaven.** I'hese be St. 
Hierome*s words. In which thou, reader, seest a denial of that 
flesh of Christ to be given to be eaten that was cnicified, but the 
flesh given to be eaten, to be a godly and spiritual flesh, and a dis- 
tinction made between them, as is in our flesh, of which it may be 
said, that the flesh we walk in here shall not see God, that is to 
say, as it is corruptible, according to the text of St. Paul,^e5A and i Cor.xr. 
blood shaU not possess heaven, and yet we must believe and hope 
with Job truly, that the same our flesh shall see God in heaven ; 
after which division likewise we receive not in the sacrament 

3 Christ's flesh that was crucified, being so a visible and mortal flesh, 

* Aogost. De Doetr. Christ, lib. iii. cap. 4. [1580.] 


BOOK but Christ's flesh glorified, incorruptible, and impassible, a godly 
* and spiritual flesh. And so, that is but one in substance and al- 

ways so, the same one is nevertheless for the alteration in the man- 
ner of the being of it divided, and so called not the same, wherein 
St. Hierome and St. Augustine used both one manner of speaking; 
and St. Hierome resembling the division that he rehearseth of a 
Christ's flesh, to the division of our flesh in the resurrection, doth 
more plainly open how the same may be called not the same, be- 
cause we believe certainly the resurrection of the same flesh we 
walk in, and yet it shall be by the garment of incorruptibility not 
the same in quality, and so be verified the Scriptures, thai Jleah 
shall not possess heaven, and I shall see God in my flesh. And 
here I will note to the reader by the way, St. Hierome writeth 
this distinction of Christ's flesh as a matter agreed on and then in 
catholic doctrine received, not of his invention, but in the catholic 
faith as a principle established, which declareth the belief to have 
been of that very godly and spiritual flesh given really in the sa- 4 
crament; for else to eat only in faith, is specially to remember 
Christ's flesh as it was visibly crucified, wherein was accomplished 
the oblation for our sins : and St. Paul willeth us in the Supper 
to show forth and profess the death of Christ, for so Christ would 
have his death continually expressed till his coming; and if Sc Hie- 
rome with other, should have meant of the eating of Christ as he 
sitteth in heaven reigning, this distinction of Christ^s flesh were an 
idle matter, and out of purpose, to compare the distinction in it to 
be like the distinction of our flesh, to enter into heaven and not to 
enter into heaven, the same and not the same. And thus 1 say 
that this place of St. Hierome showeth so evidently both his and 
St. Augustine's faith, that wrote at the same time, as there cannot 
be desired a more evident matter. 

To what purpose you should bring in here this place of i 
St. Hierome (making much against you and nothing for 
you) I cannot conceive. For he declareth no more in this 
Spiritual place, but that as all men in this world have passible bodies, 
subject to much filthiness, corruption^ and death, and yet 
after our resurrection we shall be delivered from corruption, 
vileness, weakness, and death, and be made incorruptible, 
glorious, mighty, and spiritual ; so Chrisfs body in earth was 


subject unto our infirmities, his flesh being crucified, and BOOK 

his blood being shed with a spear, which now, as you truly 

say, is glorified, impassible, incorruptible, and a spiritual 

body, but yet not so spiritual, that his humanity is turned 

into his Divinity, and his body into his soul, as some heretics 

phantasy, nor that the diversity of his members be taken 

away, and so left without arms and legs, head and feet, eyes 

and ears, and turned into the form and fashion of a bowl, as 

the papists imagine. The sun and the moon, the fire and 

the air be bodies, but no man's bodies, because they lack 

heart and lungs, head and feet, flesh and blood, veins and 

sinews, to knit them together. When Christ was trans- Matth.xTii. 

figured, his face shined like the sun, and with his mouth he 

spake to Moyses and Helias. And after his resurrection we Luke xxiv. 

read of his flesh and bones, his hands and feet, his side and ^ ° "' 

wounds, visible and palpable ; and with mouth, tongue, and 

teeth he did eat and speak, and so like a man he was in John xx. 

all proportions and members of man, that Mary Magdalene 

could not discern him from a gardener. And take away 

flesh and skin, sinews and bones, blood and veins, and then 

remaineth no mane's body. For take away distinction and 

diversity of parts and members, how shall Peter be Peter, 

and Paul be Paul? How shall a man be a man, and a 

woman a woman ? And how shall we see with our eyes, and 

hear with our ears, grope with our hands, and go with our 

feet ? For «ther we shall do no such things at all, or see 

with every part of our bodies, and likewise hear, speak, and 

go, if there be no diversity of members. This I have spoken 

for this purpose, to declare that St. Hierome, speaking of 

ChrisOs divine and spiritual flesh, excludeth not thereby any 

corporal member that pertaineth to the substance of a man^s 

natural body, but that now being glorified, it is the same in 

all parts that it was before. And that same flesh being first 

bom mortal of the Virgin Mary, and now being glorified and i Cor. x. 

immortal, as well the holy fathers did eat before he was 

bom, and his Apostles and disciples whilst he lived with us 

here in earth, as we do now when he is glorified. But 

what availeth all this to your purpose, except you could 

VOL. III. A a 


BOOK prove, that to a spiritual eating is required a corporal pre- 
^^' sence ? 

And where you say, that St. Hierome and St. Augustine > 
use both one manner of speaking, that is not true. For St. 
Hierom speaketh of the diversity of the body of Christ, and 
St. Augustine of the diversity of eaUng thereof. And yet 
here is to be noted by the way, that you say, we receive not 
Lukezzii. in the sacrament Christ^s flesh that was crucified; which 3 
your words seemeth to agree evil with Christ^s words, who 
the night before he was crucified, declared to his disciples, 
that he gave them the same body that should sufier death 
for them. And the Apostles received the body of Christ, 
yet passible and mortal, which the next day was crucified ; 
and if we receive not in the sacrament the body that was 
crucified^ then receive we not the same body that the Apo- 
stles did. And here in your idle talk you draw by force 
St. Hierom^s words to the sacrament, when St. Hierom 
speaketh not one word of the sacrament in that place : let 
the reader judge. 

And here for the conclusion of the matter, you phantasy 4 
and imagine such novelties, and wrap them up in such dark 
speeches, that we had need to have Joseph or Daniell to ex- 
pound your dreams. But to make a clear answer to your 
dark reason, the body of Christ is glorified and reigneth in 
heaven, and yet we remember with thankful minds, that the 
same was crucified and emptied of blood for our redemption ; 
and by faith to chaw and digest this in our hearts, is to eat 
bis flesh and to drink his blood. But your brain rolleth so 
in phantaffles, that you wot not where to get out, and one of 
your sayings impugneth another. For first you say, that 
we receive not in the sacrament the flesh that was crucified^ 
and now you say we receive him not as he sitteth in heaven 
and is glorified, and so must you needs grant that we re- 
ceive him not at all. 


But to return to St. Augustine, touching adoratioo, if the very 
flesh of Christ were not in the sacrament truly present, which is 


as much to say, as in substance present ; if it were not indeed pre- BOOK 
sent, that is to say, really present ; if it were not corporally pre- ^^' 
sent, that is to say, the very body of Christ there present God and Tralj, 

T man : if these truths consenting in one were not there^ St. Augus- !|^|^y ^"^^ 
tine would never have spoken of adoration there. No more he [1580.] 
doth, saith this author, there, but in heaven : let St. Augustine*s 
words, quoth I, be Judge, which be these : " No man eateth that 
** flesh but he first worshippeth it. It is found out how such a 
** footstool of the Lord*s foot should be worshipped^ and not only 
'' that we do not sin in worshippings but we do sin in not wor- 
*' shipping it.** These be St. Augu8tine*s words, which, I said be- 

s fore, cannot be drawn to an understanding of the worshipping of 
Christ's flesh in heaven, where it remaineth continually glorified, 
and is of all men christened continually worshipped. For as St. 
Fkul saith, Christ is so exalted that every tongue should confess 
that our Saviour Christ is in the glory of his Father. So as the 
worshipping of Christ there in the state of his glory where he 

3 reigneth^ hath neither '* afore** ne '* after*' but an " ever" conti- 
nual worshipping in glory. Wherefore St. Augustine, speaking of 
a *' before,** must be understanded of the worshipping of Christ's 
flesh present iu the sacrament, as in the dispensation of his humi- 

^lity, which Christ ceaseth not to do reigning in glory ; for although 
he hath finished his humble patible conversation, yet he conti- 
nueth his humble dispensation in the perfection of his mystical 
body ; and as he is our invisible priest for ever, and our advocate 
with his Father, and so for us to him a mediator to whom he is 
equal, so doth he vouchsafe in his Supper which continueth, to 
make an eflfectual remembrance of his offering for us, of the new 
testament confirmed in his blood ; and by his power roaketh him- 
self present in this visible sacrament, to be therein of us truly 
eaten, and his blood truly drunken, not only in faith, but with the 
truth and ministry of our bodily mouth, as God hath willed and 
commanded us to do ; which presence of Christ in this humility of 
dbpensation, to relieve us and feed us spiritually, we must adore, 
as St. Augustine saith, before we eat ; and we do not sin in adoring, 
but we sin in not adoring, remembering the divine nature united 
unto Christ*s flesh, and therefore of flesh not severed from the 
Godhead. Which admonishment of St Augustine declareth he 
meant not of the worshipping of Christ's flesh in heaven, where 
can be no danger of such a thought, where all tongues confess 

A a2 


BOOK Christ to be in the glory of his Father, of which Christ, as he is 
' there in glory continually to be worshipped, it were a cold saying 

of St. Augustine to say, we do not sin in worshipping Christ in 5 
heaven, but sin in not worshipping him ; as though any could have 
doubted whether Christ should be worshipped in his humanity in 
heaven, being inseparably unite to the Divinity. And when J say 
in his humanity, I speak not properly as that mystery requireth, 
for as Christ*s person is but one of two perfect natures, so the 
adoration is but one, as Cyrill declareth it, and therefore abhorreth 
the addition of a syllable to speak of coadoration. And will this 
author attribute to St. Augustine such a grossness, to have written 
and given for a lesson, that no man sinneth to worship Christ's 
flesh in heaven reigning in glory ? Wherefore taking this to be so 
far from all probability^ J said before, these words of St. Augus* 
tine cannot be drawn with any tenters to stretch so far as to reach 
to heaven, where every Christian man knoweth and professeth the 
worshipping of Christ in glory, as they be taught also to worship 
him in this dispensation of his humility, when he maketh present 
himself in this sacrament, whom we should not receive into our 
mouth before we adore him ; and by St. Augustine's rule, we not 
only not sin in adoring, but also sin in not adoring him. 


Where you speak of the adoration of Christ in the sacra- 1 
menty saying, that if he were not there present substan- 
tially, really, and corporally, St. Augustine would never have 
spoken of adoration there ; in this word '^ there^ you use a 

There. great doubleness andJaOax, for it may be referred indiffer- 
ently, either to the adoration, or to the presence. If it be 
referred to the presence, then it is neither true^ nor St. Au- 
gustine saith no such things that Christ is really, substan- 
tially, and corporally present there. If it be referred to the a 
worshippings then it is true, according to St Augusrine^s 
mind, that there, in the receiving of the sacrament in spirit 
and truth, we glorify and honour Christ, sitting in heaven 
at his Father^s right hand. But to this adoration is re* 
quired no real, substantial, and corporal presence, as before 

Gen. zzriii. I have declared : for so did Jacob worship Christ before he 
was born, and all faithful Christian people do worship him 


in all places, wheresoever they be, although he carnally and book 

corporally be far distant from them : as they daily honour 

the Father and pray unto him, and yet say, Qui es in ccplis, Mattfa. n. 

confesfflng him to be in heaven. And therefore, to avoid all 

the ambiguity and JaUax of your speech, I say, that we 

being here, do worship here Christ, being not corporally 

here, but with his Father in heaven. 

And although all Christian men ought of duty conti* 
nually to worship Christ being in heaven, yet because we be 
negligent to do our duties therein, his word and sacraments be 
ordained to provoke us thereunto. So that although other- 
wise we forgat our duties, yet when we come to any of his 
sacraments, we should be put in remembrance thereof. And 
therefore said Christ, (as St. Paul writeth,) As often as you i Cor.xi. 
shaM eat this bread and drink this cupy showjbrth the Lord*s 
death until he come. And do this (said Christ) in remem^ Luke zzii. 
brance of me. And the worshipping of Christ in his glory, 

3 should be ever continual, without either before or after. 
Nevertheless, forasmuch as by reason of our infirmity, ingra- 
titude, malice, and wickedness, we go far from our offices 
and duties herein, the sacraments call us home again, to do 
that thing which before we did omit, that at the least we 
may do at some time that which we should do at all 

4 And where you speak of the humiliation of Christ in the Humili- 
sacrament, you speak without the book ; for the Scripture 
termeth not the matter in that sort, but calleth his humi^ 
liation only his incarnation and conversation with us here in 
earth, being obedient even unto death, and for that humi- Phil. U. 
liation he is now from that time forward exalted for ever in 
glory. And you would pluck him down from his glory to 
humiliation again. And thus is Christ entreated, when he 
Cometh to the handling of ignorant lawyers, blind sophisters, 

and popish divines. But the true worshippers of Christ wor- 
ship him in spirit, sitting in his high glory and majesty, and 
pluck him not down from thence, corporally to eat him with 
their teeth, but spiritually in heart ascend up, as St. Chry- 
sostom saith, and feed upon him where he sitteth in his high 



BOOK throne of glory with his Father. To which spiritual feeding 
is required no bodily presence, nor also mouth nor teeth, and 

yet they that receive any sacrament, must adore Christ 

both before and after, »tting in heaven in the glory of bis 

Father. And this is neither, as you say it is, a cold nor 5 

gross teaching of St. Augustine in this place, to worship the 

flesh and humanity of Christ in heaven ; nor your teaching 

is not so far from all doubts, but that you seem so afraid 

yourself to stand to it, that when you have said that Christ 

is to be worshipped in his humanity, as it were to excuse the 

matter agun, you say you speak not properly. 

St. Augus- And this doctrine of St. Augustine was very necessary for 

trine is ne- two considerations. One is for the exposition of the Psalm 

^^^\ which he took in hand to declare, where in one verse is com- 
pel, iciz. '. 

manded to worship the earth, being God^s footstool. And 
this he saith may be understand in the flesh of Christ, which 
flesh being earth, and the food of faithful Christian people, 
is to be worshipped of all that feed and live by him. For 
notwithstanding that his flesh is earth of earth, and a crea- 
ture, and that nothing ought to be worshipped but Grod 
alone, yet is found out in Christ the explication of this great 
doubt and mystery, how flesh, earth, and a creature, both 
may and ought to be worshipped ; that is to say, when earth 
and flesh being united to the Godhead in one person, is one 
perfect Jesus Christ both God and man. And this is nei- 
ther a cold nor gross saying of St. Augustine, but an expli- 
cation of the divine and high mystery of his incarnation. 

The other cause why it is necessary both to teach and to 
exhort men to honour Christ^s flesh in heaven is this, that 
some know it not, and some do it not. For some heretics 
have taught, that Christ was but a man, and so not to be 
honoured. And some have said, that although he be both 
God and man, yet his Divinity is to be honoured, and not 
his humanity. For extirpation of which errors, it is no gross 
nor cold saying, that Christ'*s flesh in heaven is to be ho- 
noured. And some know right well, that whole Christ, Grod 
and man, ought to be honoured with one entire and godly 
honour ; and yet foi^tting themselves in their facts, do not 


aooording to their knowledge, but, treading the Son of Qod BOOK 
under their feet, and despising the blood whereby they were 

sanctified, crucify again the Son of God, and make him an^^ ^* 
mocking stock to all the wicked. And many professing 
Christ, yet having vain cogitations and phantasies in their 
heads, do worship and serve Antichrist, and thinking them- 
selves wise, become very fools in deed. And count you it 
then a cold and a gross saying, that Christ in heaven is to 
be honoured ? wherein so many old authors have travailed 
and written so many books, and wherein all godly teachers 
travail from time to time. And yet bring you here nothing 
to prove, that St. Augustine spake of the real presence of 
Christ^s flesh in the sacrament, and not of Christ being in 
heaven, but this your cold and gross reason. 

And this will serve to answer also the place here following 
of St. Ambrose, who spake not of the worshipping of Christ 
only at the rec^ving of the sacrament, but at all times and 
of all reasonable creatures, both men and angels. 


And for the more manifest confirmation that St. Augustine 
ought thus to be understanded, I shall bring in St. Ambrose's say- 
ings of whom it is probable St. Augustine to have learned that he 
writeth in this matter. 

St. Ambrose's words, in his book De Spiritu Sancto, lib. iii. 
cap. I a. be these : '' Non mediocris igitur qusesdo, et ideo diligeu- 
" tius consideremus quid sit scabelluro. Legimus enim alibi : Go?- 
'' lum mihi ihronus, terra autem scabeUum pedum meorum. Sed 
" nee terra adoranda nobis, quia creatura est Dei. Videamus ta- 
*' men, ne terram illam dicat adorandam Propbeta, quam Dominus 
Jesus in carnis assumptione suscepit. Itaque per scabellum 
terra intelligitur^ per terram autem caro Cbristi, quam hodie 
quoque in mjrsteriis adoramus, et quam Apostoli in Domino 
Jesu (ut supra diximus) adorarunt, neque enim divisiis Christus, 
sed unus ;" whk;h words may be Englished thus : " It is there- 
fore no mean question, and therefore we should more diligently 
consider, what u the footstool. For we read in another place, 
" Heaoen is my throne, and the earth the footstool of my feet. 

A a 4 

• f 



BOOK '^ But yet the earth is not to be worshipped of us, because it is a 
'' creature of God. And yet let us see though^ lest the prophet 
*' mean that earth to be worshipped, which our Lord Jesus took 
<* in the taking of flesh. So then by the footstool let the .earth be 
understanded, and then by the earth the flesh of Christ, which 
we do now worship also in the mysteries, and which the Apo- i 
" sties, as we have before said, worshipped in our Lord Jesu, for 
*' Christ is not divided, but one." Hitherto St. Ambrose, whereby 
may appear how St. Ambrose and St. Augustine took occasion to 
open their faith and doctrine touching adoration, upon discussion 
of the selfsame words of the prophet David. And St. Ambrose 
expressly noteth our adoration in the mysteries, where we worship 
Christ's flesh invisibly present, as the Apostles did, when Christ 
was visibly present with them. And thus with these so plain 
words of St. Ambrose consonant to those of St. Augustine^ and 
the opening of St. Augustine's words as before^ I trust I have 
made manifest how this author travaileth against the stream, and a 
laboureth in vain to writhe St. Augustine to his purpose in this 
matter. The best is in this author, that he handleth St. Augustine 
no worse than the rest, but all after one sort, because they be all 
of like sort against his new catholic faith, and confirm the old true 
catholic &ith, or do not improve it. For of this high mystery, the 
authors write some more obscurely and darkly than other, and use 
diversities of speeches and words, wherewith the true doctrine 
hath been of a very few impugned; but ever in vain, as I tnist in 
God this shall be most in vain, having this author uttered such 
untruths with so much blind ignorance, as this work well weighed 
and considered, that is to say, who made it, when he made it, and 
of like how many were, or might have been, and should have been 
of counsel in so great a matter, who if they were any, be all re- 
proved in this one work : all such circumstances considered, this 
book may do as much good to relieve such perplexity^ as altercation 
hath engendered, and so do as good service to the truth, as was 
meant thereby to hinder and impair it. And this shall suffice for 
an answer to this fourth book. 

Here appeareth your sincerity in proceeding in this mat- 
ter. For you leave out those words of St. Ambrose, which i 
maketh bis meaning plain, that the Prophet spake of the 


mystery of Chri8t''s incarnation. *^ Si negant quia in Christo BOOK 
*' etiam incarnaUonis adoranda mysteria sunt,^ &c. ^^ If they ' 

** deny,^ saith he, ^* that the mysteries of the incarnation in 
*^ Christ be to be honoured,^ &c. And a little after '* Qua ra- 
^< tione ad incarnationis Dominicae sacramentum spectare vi- 
^^ deatur, quod ait Propheta, Jdorate scabeUum pedum ejus, 
^ confflderemus.*^ ^^ Let us consider^ by what means this say- 
ing of the prophet, xcornhvp his Jbotsiooly may be seen to 
pertain to the sacrament of Christ^s incarnation.^ And after 
the words by you rehearsed, foUoweth by and by, " Cum 
^^ igitur incarnationis adorandum sit sacramentum,**^ &c. 
^' Seeing then that the sacrament of the incarnation is to be 
'' honoured.^ In these words showeth St. Ambrose plainly, 
that the worshipping of Chrisf s flesh is understand of the 
mystery of his incarnation ; so that St. Ambrose meant, not 
only that men should worship Christ when they receive the 
sacrament, but that all creatures at all times should worship 
him. And therefore he expresseth there by name, how theMatth. 
angels did worship him, and also Mary Magdalene and the"^"' 
Apostles after his resurrection, when they received not the 
sacrament. And so did also the shepherds and the wise men Luke H.^ 
worship him, yet being in his infancy ; and the Prophet, *' " 
after the mind of St. Augustine and St. Ambrose, command- 
ed to honour him before his incarnation, and we likewise ho- 
nour him ffltting now in heaven after his ascension. For so 
far is faith able to reach, without either tentering or stretch- 

Thus have I answered to all that you have brought 
agiunst my fourth book, not obscurely (as you, like a cuttle, 
have done, hiding yourself in your dark colours) but plainly 
to the capacity of all men, as much as I can. And this 
have I done with some pain of writing, but little or no study 
for the matter, being a very easy thing for defence of the 
truth to answer by God'^s word and ancient authors to an 
ignorant lawyer^ being well exercised in neither of both^ but 
making such divinity as he can dream in his sleep, or devise 
of his own brain, or hath sucked out of the papistical laws 
and decrees, and for lack of arguments, furnishing up his 


BOOK book with pretty toys, with glorious boasting and scornful 
' taunting, and with picking out of my book such sentences 
as he persuadeth himself that he can make some colour of 
apparent answer, to deceive the reader : and such places as 
he seeth his rhetoric will not serve, he passeth them away 
slightly^ because he is afraid to file his hands therewith. 
Wherefore I may now right well and justly conclude here 
mine answer to his Confutation with the words of my fourth 
book, which be these. 

[See vol. ii. p. 446, 446. « But our'' «* his blood.^ 


[ 868 ] 

The Canfutatian qfthe Second Book. 

HAVING declared how much against all tnith this author would BOOK 
bear in band, that the real presence, the corporal presence, and H. 
substantial presence of Christ*8 most precious body and blood in 
the sacrament, is not the true catholic doctrine, but a device of 

I the papists, which is a term wherewith this author doth uncha- 
ritably charge the King's true subjects, among whom he knoweth 
a great many to be of that futh he calleth now papists' : but set- 
ting words apart, and to come to the matter, as I have showed this 

3 author to err partly by wilfulness, partly by ignorance, in the un- 
derstanding of the old authors, concerning the true real presence of 
Christ's body and blood in the sacrament, so I trust to show this 
author overseen in the article of transubstantiation. For entry 
whereunto, first I say this, that albeit the word " transubstan- 
" tiation" was first spoken of by public authority in that assembly 
of learned men of Christendom, in a General « Council, where the 
Bishop of Rome was present, yet the true matter signified by that 
word was older, and believed before upon the true understanding 
of Christ's words, and was in that Council confessed, not for the 

3 authority of the Bbhop of Rome, but for the authority of truth, 
being the article such as toucheth not the authority of the Bishop 
of Rome, but the true doctrine of Christ's mysteries ; and therefore 
in this realm (the authority of Rome ceasing) was also confessed 
for a truth by all the clergy of this realm in an open Council spe- 

4 cially discussed : and though the hardness of the law' that by 
Parliament was established of that and other articles hath been 
repealed, yet that doctrine was never hitherto by any public Coun- Repealed, 
cil or any thing set forth by authority impaired, that I have heard ; 
wherefore methinketh this author should not improve it by the 

* [The fourth General Lateran Council held under Innocent III. A. D. 

^ [3^ Act of the Six ArticUiy which was passed in 1539, after a stre- 
nuous opposition from Cranmer.] 


BOOK name of the Bishop of Rome, seeing we read how truth was ut- 
^^' tered by Balaam and Caiphas also ; and St. Paul teacheth the Phi- 
lippenses^ that whether it be by contention or envy, so Christ be 
preached, the person should not impair the opening of truth, if it 
be truth : which Luther indeed would not allow for truth, im- 
pugning the article of transubstantiation, not meaning thereby, as 
this author doth, to impair the truth of the very presence of Christ's 
most precious body in the sacrament of the altar, as is afore said ; 
in the discussion of which truth of transubstantiation, I for my 5 
part should be specially defended by two means wherewith to avoid 
Zuioglius. the envious name of papist. One is, that Zuinglius himself, who 
was no papist, as is well known, nor good Christian man, as some 
said, neither, saith plainly writing to Luther in the matter of the 
sacrament : " It must needs be true, that if the body of Christ be 
'^ really in the sacrament, there is of necessity transubstantiation 
*' also.'* Wherefore seeing by Luther's travail, who favoured not the 7 
Bishop of Rome neither, and also by evidence of the truth most 
certain and manifest it appeareth, that, according to the true ca- 
tholic faith, Christ is really present in the sacrament, it is now by 
Zuinglius* judgment a necessary consequence of that truth to say 
there is transubstantiation also, which shall be one mean of pur- 
gation, that I defend not transubstantiation as depending of the 
Bishop of Rome's determination^ which was not his absolutely, 
but of a necessity of the truth, howsoever it liketh Duns or Ga- 
briel to write in it, whose sayings this author useth for his pleasure. 
Another defence is, that this author himself saith that it is over 6 
great an absurdity to say, that bread insensible, with many other 
terms that he addeth, should be the body of Christ ; and there- 
fore I think that the " is,** that is to say, the inward nature and 
essence of that Christ delivered in his supper to be eaten and 
drunken, was of his body and blood, and not of the bread and 
wine, and therefore can well agree with this author, that the 
bread of wheat is not the body of Christ, nor the body of Christ 
made of it as of a matter -, which considerations will enforce him 
that belie veth the truth of the presence of the substance of Christ's 
body, as the tnie catholic faith teacheth, to assent to transubstan- 
tiation, not as determined by the Church of Rome, but as a con- 
sequent of truth believed in the mystery of the sacrament ; which 
transubstantiation how this author would impugn, I will without 
quarrel of envious words consider, and, with true opening of his 


handling the matter, doubt not to make the reader to see dmt he BOOK 
fighteth against the truth. 
8 I will pass over the unreverent handling of Christ*s words. This 
is my body ; which words I heard this author (if he be the same 
that is named) once rehearse more seriously in a solemn open 
audience ST, to the conviction and condemnation, as followed, of 
one that erroneously maintained against the sacrament the same 
that this author calleth now the catholic faith. 


In this book (which answereth to my second book rather 
with taunting words than with matter) I will answer the 
chief points of your intent, and not contend with you in 
scolding, but will give you place therein. 

f First, I charge none with the name of papists but that be Papists 
well worthy thereof. For I charge not the hearers, but the aJthi>Jg*i,f 
teachers, not the learners, but the inventors of the untrue transab- 
doctrine of transubstantiation ; not the King^s faithful sub- 
jects, but the Pope's darlings, whose faith and belief hang- 
eth of his only mouth. And I call it their doctrine, not 
only because they teach it, but because they made it, and 
were the first finders of it. 

And as in the third book, concerning the real presence of 

aChrist^s body and blood in the sacrament, you have not 
showed mine ignorance or wilfulness, but your own, so do 
you now much more in the matter of transubstantiation; 
which word, say you, albeit the same was first spoken of in 
the General Council, where the Bishop of Rome was present, 
yet the true matter signified by that word was older. Here 
at the first brunt you confess that the name of transub- 
stantiation was given at that Council. So that either the 
matter was not before, as it was not in deed, or at the least 
it was before a nameless child, (as you do grant,) until the 
holy father Innocent the Third, which begat it, assembled 
a company of his friends as godfathers to name the child. 

c FGardyner alludes to the part which Cranmer took iu the disputa- 
tion ueld with Lambert, before King Henrv VIII. in 1538. See Eiami' 
nation before Brokesy and Foxe, Acts and iionumenttf vol. ii. p. 435.] 


BOOK And by what authority the Council defined the matter of 
^^' transubstantiation^ it may easily appear. For authority of 
Scripture have they none, nor none they do allege. And 
what the authority of the Pope was there, all men may see, 3 
being present in the same no less than eight hundred abbots 
and priors, who were all the Pope's own children, of him 
created and begotten. 

And as for the confession of all the clergy of this realm in 4 
The Conn- an open Council, the authority of Rome ceasing, you speak 
find? "^' ^^^ * manifest untruth wittingly against your conscience. 
For you know very well (and if you will deny it, there be 
enough yet alive can testify) that divers of the clergy, being 
of most godly living, learning, and judgment, never consent- 
ed to the articles which you speak of. And what marvel 
was it that those articles (notwithstanding divers learned 
men repugning) passed by the most voices of the Parlia- 
ment ? seeing that although the authority of Rome was then 
newly ceased, yet the darkness and blindness of errors and 
ignorance that came from Rome still remained and over- 
shadowed so this realm, that a great number of the Parlia- 
ment had not yet their eyes opened to see the truth. And 
yet how that matter was enforced by some persons, they 
know right well that were then present. But after, when it 
pleased Almighty God more clearly to shine unto us by 
the light of his word, our eyes by his goodness were opened, 
darkness discussed, and that which was done in ignorance 
and darkness, was by knowledge and light in public Council 
reversed and taken away, as well concerning the doctrine as 
the hardness of the law. For if the doctrine had been true 
and godly, there is no Christian-hearted man but he would 
have desired the establishment and continuance thereof. But 
the doctrine being false and such as came only from Rome, 
they be not worthy to be likened to those truths which 
came from God and were uttered by Balaam and Cayphas, 
but to be numbered among those lies which came from his 
John yiii. vicar, who when he speaketh lies, eoc propriis loquituTf he 
speaketh properly of himself. 

And the Bishop of Rome was not clean gone out of Eng- 


land, as soon as the laws were made against his authority, book 
but remained still by his corrupt doctrine, as I fear me be ^^- 
doeth yet in some men^s hearts, who were the chief pro- 
curers and setters forthward of the foresaid law. But yet is 
all together to be imputed to the Bishop of Rome, forasmuch 
as from thence came all the foresaid errors, ignorance, and 
corruption, into these parties. 

5 Now where you take upon you here to purge yourself of 
papistry by me and Zuinglius, if you have no better com- 
purgators than us two, you be like to fail in your purgation, 
for neither of us, I dare say, durst swear for you in this 

6 matter, though Zuinglius were alive. Or if your purgation 
stand to this point, that Christ called not bread made of 
wheat his body, (although in a formal and proper speech 
bread is not in deed his body,) you may be as rank a papist 
as ever was, for any purgation you can make by this way. 
For Christ called bread made of wheat his body, as the 
words of the Evangelists plainly declare, and all old writers 
teach ; and in your book of The DeviPs Sophistry you have 
confessed, saying that Christ made demonstration of bread 
when he said. This is my body. And therefore bring some 
better purgation than this, or else had you been better not 
to have offered any purgation in a matter that no man 
charged you withal, than by offering a purgation and fail- 
ing therein, to bring yourself into more suspicion. 

And whereas in fortification of your matter of transub- Real pre- 

7 stantiation you make your argument thus, that forasmuch ^°^. 
as the body of Christ is really in the sacrament, there is of transub- 
necessity transubstantiation also : this your argument hath ***"***^***°* 
two great faults in it : the firat is, that your antecedent is 

false, and then you cannot conclude thereof a true conse- 
quent: the second fault is, that although the antecedent 
were granted unto you, that the body of Christ is really in 
the sacrament, yet the consequent cannot be inferred thereof, 
that there is of necessity transubstantiation. For Christ 
can make his body to be present in the sacrament as well 
with the substance of the bread as without it, and rather 
with the substance of bread than with the accidents, foras- 


BOOK much as neither Chrisfs body there occupieth any place, as 
^^' you say yourself, nor no more doth the substance of bread 

by itself, but by means of the accidents, as you say also. 
I erred jjow forasmuch as you say that you will pass over the 8 

this matter, unreverent handling of Christ^s words, which you heard me 
once more seriously rehearse in solemn open audience, I 
knowledge that not many years passed, I was yet in dark- 
ness concerning this matter, being brought up in scholastical 
and Romish doctrine, whereunto I gave too much credit* 
And therefore I grant that you have heard me stand and 
defend the untruth, which I then took for the truth, and so 
did I hear you at the same time. But praise be to the 
Acts ix. everliving God, who hath wiped away those Saulish scales 
from mine eyes, and I pray unto his divine Majesty with all 
mine heart, that he will likewise do once the same to you. 
Thy will be fulfilled, O Lord ! 

But forasmuch as you pass over my handling of Christy's 
words, (as you use commonly to pass in post, when you have 
no direct answer to make,) I shall here repeat my words 
again, to the intent that the indifferent reader may presently 
see how I have handled them, and then judge whether you 
ought so slenderly to pass them over as you do. My words 
be these. 

[See vol. 11. p. 318—317. " Thus have you heard"" 

" God's word.""] 


But to the purpose : the simplicity of faith in a Christian man's i 
breast doth not so precisely mark and stay at the syllables of 
Christ's words, as this author pretendeth^ and knowing by faith 
the truth of Christ's words, that as he said he wrought, do not 
measure God's secret working after the prolation of our sylla-3 
bles, whose work is in one instance, howsoever speech in us re- 
quire a successive utterance ; and the manner of handling this a 
author useth to bring the mystical words in contempt, were meeter 
in an ethnic's mouth to jest out all, than to pass the lips of such an 
author, to play with the syllables after this sort ; for although be 
may read in some blind gloss that in the instant of the last sylla- 
ble God*s work is to be accounted wrought, being a good lesson 



4 to admonish the minister to pronounce all, yet it is so but a pri- BOOK 
vate opinion, and reverently uttered, not to put the virtue in the ' 

5 last syllable, nor to scorn the catholic faith ; after which manner, 
taking example of this author, an ethnic should jest of " fiat 
"lux,** at " fi** was nothing, and then at ''at** was yet nothing, 
at " lu ' was nothing but a little little peering ; put an '' x** to it, 
and it was suddenly " lux,** and then light. What Christian man 
would handle either place thus ? and therefore, reader, let this en- 

^ try of the matter serve for an argument with what spirit this mat- 

ter is handled. 

But to answer that this author noteth with an exclamation, 

6 "Oh, good Lord ! how would they have bragged, if Christ had said, 
"This is no bread!** here I would question vnth this author, 
whether Christ said so or no, and reason thus: Christ's body 
is no material bread ; Christ said. This is my body ; Ergo, he said. 
This is no bread. And the first part of this reason this author 
affirmeth in the fifty- ninth leafs. And the second part is Christ*s 
words : and therefore, to avoid this conclusion, the only way is to 
say, that Chrisfs speech was but a figure, which the catholic doc- 
trine saith is false ; and therefore by the catholic doctrine Christ*s 
saying. This is my body, saith in effect, this is no bread -, whereat 
this author saith, they would brag if Christ had said so. In speech 

7 is to be considered, that every yea containeth a nay in it naturally ; 
so as whosoever saith. This is bread, saith it is no wine i whoso- 
ever saith. This is wine, saith it is no beer : if a lapidary saith, 
This is a diamond, he saith it is no glass, he saith it is no crystal, 
he saith it is no white sapphire. So Christ saying. This is my body, 
saith it is no bread. Which plainness of speech caused Zuinglius 
to say plainly. If there be present the substance of the body of 
Christ, there is transubstantiation, that is to say, not the sub- 
stance of bread ; and therefore who will plainly deny transubstan- 

8 tiation, must deny the true presence of the substance of Christ*s 
body, as this author doth, wherein I have first convinced him, and 
therefore use that victory for his overthrow in transubstantiation. 

9 I have showed before, how Christ*s words were not figurative 
when he said. This is my body, and yet I will touch here such tes- 
timony as this author bringeth out of Hilarie for the purpose of 
transubstantiation, in the twenty- fifth leaf ^ of this book in these 

10 words : " There is a figure,** saith Hilarie, " for bread and wine be 

R [See vol. ii. p. 376.] *» [Sec vol. ii. p. 324.] 

VOL. III. B b 


BOOK " outwardly seen, and there is also a truth of that figure, for the 
II. « body and blood of Christ be of a truth inwardly believed." 
These be Hilarie*8 words, as this author allegeth them, who was, 
he saith, within 350 years of Christ. Now I call to thy judgment, 
good reader, could any man devise more pithy words for the proof 
of the real presence of Christ's body and blood, and the condem- 
nation of this author that would have an only figure ? Here in 
Hilarie*s words is a figure compared to truths and sight outwardly 
to belief inwardly. Now our belief is grounded upon God*s word, 
which is this. This is my body ; in which words Hilary tesdfieth, 
that is inwardly believed is a truth, and the figure is in that is seen 
outwardly. I take Hilary here as this author allegeth him, where- 
by I ask the reader, is not this author overthrown, that Christ*s 
speech is not figuraUve, but true and proper, being inwardly true 
that we believe. Ye will say unto me. What is this to transub- 
stantiation, to the reproof whereof it was brought in, because he 
saith bread and wine is seen } First I say, that it overthroweth 
this author for truth of the presence of Christ's body, and every 
overthrow therein overthroweth this author in transubstantiadon ; 
not by authority of the church of Rome, but by consequence in 
truth, as Zuinglius saith, who shall serve me to avoid papistry. If 
one ask me, what say ye then to Hilary that bread and wine are 
seen ? I say they be indeed seen, for they appear so, and there- 
fore be called so^ as Isaac said of Jacob, it was his voice, and yet n 
by his sense of feeling deemed him Esau, which was not Esau, but 
was Jacob, as the voice from within did declare him. If ye will 
ask me how can there, according to Hilarie's words, be in the out- 
ward visible creatures any figure, unless the same be in deed as 
they appear; bread and wine; I will answer; even as well as this 
outward object of the sensible hairiness of Jacob resembling 
Esau, was a figure of Christ's humanity and of the very humanity 
indeed. Thus may Hilary be answered to avoid his authority 
from contrarying transubstantiation. But this author shall never 
avoid that himself hath brought out of Hilary, which overthrow- 
eth him in his figurative speech, and consequently in his denial of 
transubstantiation also, as shall appear in the further handling of 
this matter. 

Where this author, in the eighteenth leaf ^ compareth these St. 12 
Paul's words : The bread that toe breaks is it not the communion of 

' [See vol. ii. p. 314.] 


the body of Christ, to be the expounding of Christ's words, This is my BOOK 
body ; I deny that: for Christ^s words declared the substance of *^' 
the sacrament, when he said. This is my body, and St. Paul de- 
clareth the worthy use of it according to Christ's institution, and 

13 by the words. The bread that we break, doth signify the whole use 
of the Supper, wherein is breaking, blessing, thanksgiving, dis- 
pensing, receiving, and eating; so as only breaking is not the 
communion, and yet by that part in a figure of speech St. Paul 
meaneth ail, being the same as appeareth by the Scripture, a term 
in speech, to go break bread, although it be not always so taken, 
whereby to signify to go celebrate our Lord's Supper, and there- 
fore bread in that place may signify the common bread, as it is 
adhibit to be consecrate ; which by the secret power of God turn- 
ed into the body of Christ, and so distribute and received, is the 
communion of the body of Christ; as the cup is likewise of the blood 
of Christ, after the benediction, which benediction was not spoken 
of in the bread, but yet must be understanded. As for Christ's 

14 calling of bread his body, is to make it his body, who, as St. Paul 
saith, calleth that is not, as it were, and so maketh it to be. 

The arguments this author useth in the nineteenth and twentieth 

15 leaf^ of the order of Christ's speeches as the Evangelists rehearse 
them, be captious devices of this author, in case he knoweth what 
St. Augustine writeth, or else ignorance, if he hath not read St. 
Augustine De Doctrina Christiana, where he giveth a rlue of reca- 

i6pitulation, as he calleth it, when that is told after that was done 
afore, and therefore we may not argue so firmly upon the order of 
the telling in the speech. St. Augustine^ bringeth an example, that 
by order of telling Adam was in paradise or any tree was brought 
forth for feeding, with divers other, wherewith I will not encum- 
ber the reader. The Evangelist rehearseth what Christ said and 
did, simply and truly, which story we must so place in under- 
standing, as we trifle not with the mystery, at staying and stop- 
ping of letters and syllables. And therefore though the words 
Take, eat, go before the words Tfus is my body, we may not argue 
that they took it and eat it afore Christ had told them what he 
gave them ; and all these often rehearsals of bread, with He took 
bread, and brake bread, and blessed bread, and if ye will add, held 
bread, all this induce no consequence that he therefore gave bread : 

^ ]See vol. ii. p. 314^316.] ^ August. De Doctrina Christiana, 

lib. ui. cap. 36. 



BOOK for he gave that he had consecrate, and gave that he made of 18 
^^' bread. If Christ, when he was tempted to make stones bread, 
had taken the stones and blessed t}iem, and delivered them, say- 
ing. This is bread, had he then delivered stones, or rather that he 
made of stones, bread? Such manner of reasoning useth Peter Mar- 
tyr as this author doth, whose folly I may well say he saw not to 
eschew it, but as appeareth rather to follow it; and yet not con- 
tent to use this fond reasoning, this author calleth papists to wit- 
ness, that they might laugh at it : because the Evangelist telleth 
the story so as Christ said, " drink," and th^n told after what it 
was ; this author faucieth that the Apostles should be so hasty to 17 
drink ere Christ had told them what he gave, which and they had, 
I think he would have stayed the cup with his hand, or bid them 
tarry, whilst he had told them more. 

I will no further travail with this reasoning, which it is pity to 
hear in such a matter of gravity, of such consequence as it is 
both in body and soul. We may not trifle with Christ's words 
after this sort. When St. Paul saith, fVe be partakers of one 19 
bread, he speaketh not of material bread, but of Christ's body, our 
heavenly bread, which to all is one, and cannot be consumed, but 
able to feed all the world ; and if this author giveth credit to 
Theodoretus, whom he calleth an holy man, then shall he never 
find the sacrament called bread after the sanctification, but the 
bread of life, the like whereof should be in an Epistle™ of Chry- 20 
sostome, as Peter Martyr allegeth, not yet printed, by whose au- 
thorities, if they have any, as in their place this author maketb 
much of them, all these arguments be all trifles ; for all the 
naming of bread by Christ and St. Paul, and all other, must be 
understanded before the sanctification and not after. And if thou, 21 
reader, lookest after upon Theodoretus and that Epistle, thou shalt 
find true that I say, whereby all this questioning with the papists 
is only a dallying for this author's pleasure, against his own au- 
thors and all learning. 

Where you say that the simplicity of faith in a Christian 1 
man'^s breast doth not so precisely mark and stay at the syl- 
lables of Chrises words as I pretend, here may the world 
see what simplicity is in the papists. For I do nothing else 
but rehearse what the papists say, that until these words be 
*» [Ad Casarium Monachum, See vol. ii. p. 325.] 


fully ended Hoc est corpus meumf there is bread, and after BOOK 
those words be fully ended^ there is no more bread, but only 
Christ himself. And the same simplicity do you declare by 
and by to be in yourself, when you say that 6od'*s work is 
in one instant, howsoever speech require in us a successive 

2 utterance. Then if God change the bread into Chrisf s body 
in one instant, tell me, I pray you, in which instant ? For 
seeing that our pronunciation is by succession of time, I 
think you will not say that the work of God is done before 
the last syllable be pronounced ; (for then Christ^s body 
should be there before the words of consecration were fully 
finished;) nor I think you will not deny but whensoever the 
words of consecration be fully pronounced, then is Christ^s 
body there. Wherefore by your own judgment you vary 

3 not in this matter from the other papists, but must needs 
say, that God^s secret work herein is measured after the pro- 
lation of our syllables, and so it is none other person that 
teacheth to play with syllables in this high mystery, but the 

4 papists only. And yourself do teach in this same place, 
that it is a good lesson to say, that in the instant of the last 
syUable God^s work is to be accounted wrought. And I 
find it not in blind glosses, but in the chief authors of the 
papists, that the conversion is not wrought before the whole 
sentence is finished. Hoc est corpus meum. 

5 And it is no direct answer, but a mere cavillation and The crea. 
illusion, to bring in here the creation of the world, when ^^i^ ^^ 
God said^^fiat lux^ to be a like matter unto transubstantia- 

tion. For God'^s speech requireth no succession of time, as 
the speech of the priest doth. Therefore this is but a play- 
ing, to show your subtle wit and crafty rhetoric, whereby 
your spirit may be judged, whether you go about clearly to 
set forth the truth, or by dark colours and unlike examples 
to hide and cover it. 

6 And where you question with me, going about by a This is do 
subtle sophistical argument, to prove that Christ said, This^****** 

18 no bread ; I shall make another argument of the same 
form, which shall show how strong your argument is. St. 
John is not the son of the Virgin Mary; Christ said to her, 



BOOK This is thy son; Ergo^ he said, This is not John. The first 
part I am sure you will affirm in effect ; the second part is 

John xix. Christ'^s words : and as the second part in my argument is 
a figurative speech, so is it in yours ; so that in every point 
the arguments be like. And therefore as mine argument is 
naught, so is yours also ; and all that you bring in to follow 
thereof. And if I list to dally, as you do^ in such a matter, 
I could conclude directly against you, that in the sacra- 
ment is not Chrisfs body, thus; Christ^s body is not mate- 
1 Cor. %. rial bread: St.^Paul said it is bread: Ergo, he said it is not 
and XI. Christ's body. The first part you affirm, the second part 
St. Paul affirmeth. And therefore to avoid this conclusion, 
the only way is, to say that Christ's speech was a figurative 
speech, when he said. This is my body. For else by the 
catholic doctrine St. Paul, saying that it is bread, saith in 
effect it is not the body of Christ. Thus may you see what 
availeth your sophistication, when I am constrained so- 
phisHcari cum sophista, ut ars deludatur arte. 
Yea and And of like effect is your argument of yea and nay, when 7 

n»y- you say every yea containeth a nay in it naturally. There- 

fore Christ saying it is his body, saith it is no bread. If 
this form of argument were infallible, then I may turn the 
same to you again, and overthrow you with your own wea- 
pon thus. St. Paul said it is bread; Ergo, it is not Christ's 
body ; if the affirmation of the one be a negation of the 
other. And by such sophistication you may turn up all the 
truth quite and clean, and say that Christ was neither God 
nor man, because he said he was a vine and bread ; and 
every yea, say you, containeth a nay in it naturally. 

And where you boast that you have convinced me in the 8 
matter of the real presence of Christ's body, I trust the in- 
different reader will say, that you triumph before the victory, 
saying that you have won the field, when indeed you have 
lost it ; and when Golyath's head is smitten off with his own 
I Sam. xvii. sword. But the old English proverb is here true, that it is 
good beating of a proud man ; for when he is all to beaten 
back and bone, yet will he boast of his victory, and brag 
what a valiant man he is. 


9 And it is another vain brag also that you make, when BOOK 
you say, that you have showed before that Christ^s words "' 
were not figurative, when he said, This is my body. For 
you have neither proved that you say, nor have answered 
to my proofs to the contrary, as I refer to the judgment of 
all indifferent readers ; but you have confessed that Christ 
called bread his body, and made demonstration upon the 
bread, when he said. This is my body. How can then this 
speech be true, but by a figure, that bread is Christ's body? 
seeing that in proper speech, as you say, every yea con- 
taineth a nay, and the affirmation of one thing is the denial 
of another ? 

10 And where you allege, as it were against me, the words HUarie. 
of Hilarie, that there is both a figure and a truth of that 
figure; for answer hereunto the truth is, that your matter 

here is gathered of an untruth, that I would have only a 
figure^ whereas I say plainly, as Hilarie saith, that in the 
true ministration of the Sacrament is both a figure and a 
truth ; the figure outwardly, and the truth inwardly. For 
bread and wine be sensible signs and sacraments, to teach 
us outwardly, what feedeth us inwardly. Outwardly we see 
and feel bread and wine with our outward senses, but in- 
wardly by faith we see and feed upon Chrisf s true body 
and blood. But this is a spiritual feeding by faith, which 
requireth no corporal presence. And here I ask you two 
questions, one is this, whether Hilary say that the body of 
Christ is under the forms of bread and wine, and that cor- 
porally ? If he say not so, as the reader shall soon judge, 
looking upon his words, then stand I upright without any 
fall or foil, for Hilary saith not as you do. The other 
question is, whether Hilary do not say that there is a figure? 
let the reader judge also, and see whether you be not quite 
overthrown with your own crook, in saying that Christ'^s 
speech is not figurative. And yet the third question I may 
add also, why St. Hilary should say, that bread and wine 
be figures, if there be no bread nor wine there at all, but be 

11 taken clean away by transubstantiation ? And whereas for 
answer hereto you take the example of Jacob, who for his 

B b 4 


BOOK hairiness resembled Esau, and was, as you say, a figure of 
"- Chrisf 8 very humanity, you do like an unskilful mariner, 
that to avoid a little tempest, runneth himself upon a rock. 
For where you make Jacobs who resembled Esau, and was 
not he indeed, to be a figure of Christ^s humanity, you 
make by this example, that as Jacob by his hairiness re- 
sembled Esau and was not he indeed, so Christ by outward 
appearance resembled a man, and yet he was no man indeed. 
I Cor. X. And where you deny that these words of St. Paul^ Is not 12 
the bread which we break the communion of the body cf 
Christy declare the meaning of Christ^s words, TT^is is my 
body^ because Christ^s words, say you, declare the substance, 
and St. PauFs words declare the use : I deny that Christ^s 
body is the substance of the visible sacrament. For the 
substance of the sacrament is bread and wine, and the thing 
thereby signified is Chrisfs body and blood. 

And this is notable which you say, that these words, the 13 
bread which we breaks do signify the whole use of the Sup- 
BreakiDg per, not only breaking, but also blessing, thanksgiving, dis- 
tii°wkoie pen^ng, receiving, and eating ; and that the bread in this place 
use of the signifieth common bread taken to be consecrated. In which 
saying it is a world to see the phantasies of men^s devices, 
how uncertam they be in matters pertiuning to God. How 
agreeth this your saying with your doctrine of transubstan- 
tiation ? For if St. Paul, when he sud, the bread which we 
breaks is it not the communion of ChrisCs body, meant by 
bread common bread, and by breaking meant also the 
blessing, thanksgiving, receiving, and eating, then is com- 
mon bread broken, blessed, received, and eaten. And then 
where becometh your transubstantiation, if common bread 
be eaten in the sacrament ? And when is the bread turned 
into the body of Christy if it remain common bread until it 
be eaten ? Yet now you seem to begin something to savour 
of the truth, that the bread remaineth still in his proper 
nature enduring the whole use of the Supper. 
Rom. iv. And as touching this place of St. Paul, that God calleth 14 
things that be not, as they were ; if it pertain unto the sa- 
crament, where Christ called bread his body, what could 


you have alleged more against yourself? For if in this BOOK 
place Christ call that which is not as it were, then Christ 
called bread as it were his body, and yet it is not his body 

But in this your answer to the arguments, brought in by Whether all 

15 me out of the very words of the Evangelists, is such a^*.^^"^^ 
shameless arrogancy and boldness showed, as abhorreth all the history 
Christian ears for to hear, which is, that three Evangelists ^r out of 
telling the manner of Christ^s holy Supper, not one of them ^^^^' 
all do tell the tale in right order, but subvert the order of 
Christy's doings and sajrings, and that in such a necessary 
matter of our religion, that the definition of the whole truth 
standeth in the order. The Evangelists, say you, rehearse 
what Christ said and did, simply and truly. But is this a 
simple and true rehearsal of Christ^s words and deeds, to 
tell them out of order otherwise than Christ did and said 
them P And St. Paul also, if it be as you say, speaking of 
the same matter, committeth the like error. And yet never 
no ancient author expounding the Evangelists, or St Paul, 
could spy out this fault, and in their commentaries ^ve us 
warning thereof. 

16 And I am not so ignorant, but I have many times read 
St. Augustine De Doctrina Christiana, where he suth, that 
sometimes in Scripture a thing is told after, that was done 
before. But St. Augustine saith not that it is so in this 
matter, nor I am not so presumptuous to say that all the 
three Evangelists, with St. Paul also, disordered the truth 
of the story, in a matter wherein the truth cannot be known 
but by the order. St. Augustine^, De Consensu Evangelism 
tarum^ saith, that that which Luke rehearseth of the chalice, 
before the ^ving of the bread, was spoken by Christ after 
the distribution of the bread, as the other two Evangelists 
report the same. And if these words. Hoc est corpus 
meuniy had been put out of the right place in all the three 
Evangelists, and also in St. Paul, would not St. Augustine Lake »ii. 
have given warning thereof, as well as of the other? And Markxiy.* 
would all other authors expounding that place, have passed 
over the matter in silence, and have spoken not one word 

^ August. De Coruentu Evangelitiarump lib. ill. 


BOOK thereof, specially being a matter of such weight, that the 
^^' catholic faith and our salvation, as you say, hangeth thereof ? 
Do not all the proofs that you have, hang of these words. 
Hoc est corpus meum^ This is my body f And shall you 
say now, that they be put out of their place ? and then you 
must needs confess, that you have nothing to defend your- 
self, but only one sentence, and that put out of order, and 
from his right place, as you say yourself; where indeed the 
Evangelists and Apostles, being true rehearsers of the story 
in this matter^ did put those words in the right place. But 
you, having none other shift to defend your error, do re- 
move the words both out of the right place and the right 
sense. And can any man that loveth the truths give his 
ears to hear you, that turn upside down both the order and 
sense of Chrisf s words, contrary to the true narration of the 
Evangelists, contrary to the interpretation of all the old au- 
thors, and the approved faith of Christ^s Church, even from 
the beginning, only to maintain ycnur wilful assertions and 
papistical opinions ? 

So long as the Scripture was in the interpretation of 
learned divines, it had the right sense, but when it came to 
the handling of ignorant lawyers and sophistical papists, 
such godly men as were well exercised in holy Scripture, 
and old catholic writers, might declare and defend the truth 
at their perils, but the pa(NStical sophisters and lawyers 
would ever define and determine all matters as pleased 
The van. But as all truths agree to the truth, and falsehood agreeth 
aDceof the ^^^ ^^||^ itself, SO it is a plain declaration of untruth, that 

papists 10 , ' * ' 

consecra- the papists vary so among themselves. For some say that 
**®°' Christ consecrated by his own secret power without sign or 

words ; some say that his benediction was his consecration; 
some say that he did consecrate with these words, Hoc est 
corpus meum; and yet those vary among themselves, for some 
say that he spake these words twice, once immediately after 
benediction, at what time they say he consecrated, and 
again after, when he commanded them to eat it, appointing 
then to his Apostles the form of consecration. And lately 
came new Papists with their five eggs, and say that the con- 


secration is made only with these five words. Hoc est envn BOOK 
corpus meum. And last of all come you and Smith with 

yet your newer devices, saying, that Christ spake those words Smith, 
before he gave the bread, and immediately after the breaking, 
manifestly contrary to the order of the text, as all the Evan- 
gelists report, and contrary to all old authors of the catholic 
Church, (which all with one consent say, that Christ gave 
bread to his Apostles,) and contrary to the Book of Common 
Prayer by you allowed, which rehearseth the words of the 
EvangeUsts thus, that Christ took breads and when he had 
blessed atid given thanks j he brake it^ and gave it to his 
disciples^ where all the relation is made to the bread. Is 
this your faithful handling of God^s word, for your pleasure 
to turn the words as you list ? Is it not a thing much to 
be lamented, that such as should be the true setters forth of 
Christ^s Gospel, do trifle with Christ^s words after this sort, 
to alter the order of the Gospel after their own phantasy P 
Can there be any trifling with Christ^s words, if this be not? 
And shall any Christian man give credit to such corrupters 
of holy Scripture? Have you put upon you harlots^ faces, 
that you be past all shame, thus to abuse God's word to 
your own vanity ? 

17 And be you not ashamed likewise so manifestly to belie 
me, that I fancy that the Apostles should be so hasty to 
drink or Christ had told them what he gave? whereas 
by my words appeareth clean contrary, that they drank not 
before all Christ'^s words were spoken. 

18 And where you say that Christ gave that he had conse- Christ's 
crated, and that he made of bread ; here you grant that ^f 5^^,^ 
Christ^s body, which he gave to his disciples at his last 
supper, was made of bread. And then it must follow, that 
either Christ had two bodies, the one made of the flesh of 

the Virgin Mary, the other of bread, or else that the self- 
same body was made of two diverse matters, and at diverse 
and sundry times. Now what doctrine this is, let them 
judge that be learned. And it is worthy a note, how un- 
constant they be that will take upon them to defend an un- 
truth, and how good memories they had need to have, if 


BOOK they should not be taken with a lie. For here you say that 
''* Chrisf 8 body in the sacrament is made of bread, and in the 

eleventh comparison you said, that this saying is so fond^ as 
were not tolerable to be by a scoffer devised in a play, to 
supply when his fellow had forgotten his part. 
I Cor. X. And where you say that St. Paul speaketh not of mate- 19 
rial bread, but of Christ s body, when he saith, that we be 
partakers qf one bready the words of the text be plain 
against you. For he speaketh of the bread that is broken, 
whereof every man taketh part, which is not Christ^s body, 
except you will say, that we eat Christ^s body divided in 
pieces, as the gross Capemaites imagined. And St. Au- 
gustine with other old authors do write, that Paul spake of 
such bread as is made of a great multitude of grains of com 
gathered together and united into one material loaf, as the 
multitude of the spiritual members of Christ be joined to- 
gether into one mystical body of Christ. 
Cbiyios. -^^^ ^ concerning Theodorete and Chrysostome, they 20 
tome. The- g^^y ^ plainly as can be spoken, that the bread remaineth 
after consecration, although we call it by a more excellent 
name of dignity, that is to say, by the name of Christ^s 
body. But what estimation of wisdom or learning soever 
you have of yourself, surely there appeareth neither in you 
Alteration in this place, where upon the alteration of the name of bread, 
^^Sr?** y^^ would gather the alteration of the substance or tran- 
nity. substantiation. Be not kings and emperors very men, al- 

though they be ever called by the names of their royal and 
imperial dignities ? Or are they therefore gods, because the 
Ps. Izxzi. Prophet calleth them so ? And who ever called you a man, 
sithence you were a bishop P and yet that dignity took not 
from you the nature of a man. And the Pope is a man, 
although he be called JtUms, or Pater sanctissimusj or Hy» 
pocrita impiissimiis. So is bread still bread, although it 
represent the body of Christ, and be called in that respect, 
as a figure, the very body of Christ. 
Bread after And where you say that the naming of bread by Christ, 21 

the saDctifi- j^q J g^^ Paul, and all other, must be understand before the 
canon. ^ , 

sanctification, and not after, St. PauPs own words reprove 


this your saying most manifestly. For he calleth it bread BOOK 
when it is the communion of Christ^s body, and when it is ^^' 
eaten, saying. The bread which we breaks is it not the com- 1 Cor. z. 
munion of Chrisfs body 9 and, As often as you eat this » ^^^ *'• 
bread and drink this cttp : and. Whosoever eateth tlte bread 
and drinketh the cup of the Lord unworthily: and, Let a man 
try himself and so eat of thai bread and drink of the cup : 
and. He thai eateth and drinketh unworthily^ S^c. Now these 
sayings cannot be understand before the sanctification, ex- 
cept you will grant that the bread was Chrisfs body, and 
that it was eaten before it was sanctified. Wherefore let 
every reader that knoweth any thing, judge whether you 
seek any truth in this matter, or whether you study to 
search out vain cavillations, and yet the same being clean 
contrary to the manifest words of holy Scripture, and to all 
approved writers. Wherefore, gentle reader, weigh St Paul's 
words, whether he call it bread after the sanctification, or 
only before, and as thou findest St. Paul make with this 
man^s saying that trifleth away the truth, so thou mayest 
believe him in all other things. Hitherto is discussed how 
the doctrine of transubstantiation is against God^s word. 
Now foUoweth in my book, how the same is agunst nature: 
whereof I write thus. 

[See vol. ii. p. 817, 818. ** Let us now consider^—— 
nature and reason.*"] 


In the third chapter, written in the twenty-first leaf, it troubleth 
this aathor that the doctrine of transubstaDtiation is in his Judg- 
ment against natural reason and natural operation, in the entry of 
which matter he granteth wisely that they should not prevail 

1 against God's word; and yet he saith, when they be Joined with 
God's word, they be of great moment to confirm any truth: 
wherein if he meaneth to confirm God's word by reason, or God's 
mysteries by natural operation, mine understanding cannot reach 
that doctrine, and is more strange to me than this author maketh 

2 transubstantiation to be to him. As for the reason of vaatum 
declareth a vacuum that nature abborreth not. And if we speak 
after the rules of nature, quantity filleth the place rather than 


BOOK substance. And shortly to answer this author, it is not said in 
^^' the doctrine of transubstantiation that there remaineth nothing. 

for in the visible form of bread remaineth the proper object of 3 

every sense truly; that is seen with the bodily eye, is truly seen; 

that is felt, is truly felt > that is savoured, is truly savoured ; and 

those things corrupt, putrify, nourish, and consume afler the truth 

of the former nature, God so ordering it that create all, using 

singularly that creature of bread, not to unite it unto him as he 

did man*s nature, to be in bread impanate and breaded, as he was 

in flesh incarnate. 

And as for reason in place of service, as being inferior to faith, 

will agree with the faith of transubstantiation well enough. For 5 

if our faith of the true presence of Christ's very body be true, as 

it is most true, grounded upon these words of Christ, This is my 

body, then reason yielding to that truth, will not strive with 

transubstantiation, but plainly affirm that by her judgment, if it 

be the body of Christ, it b not bread. For in the rule of common 4 

reason, the grant of one substance is the denial of another, and 

Conda- therefore reason hath these conclusions throughly, whatsoever is 

siooB of i)read is no wine, whatsoever is wine is no milk, and so forth. 


[1580.] And therefore being once believed this to be the body of 

Christ, reason saith by and by it is not bread, by the rule afore* 
said, whereby appeareth how reason doth not strive witli transub- 
stantiation, being once conquered with faith of the true presence 
of Christ's body, which is most evident, and no whit darkened 
by any thing this author hath brought. As for natural operation 6 
is not in all men's judgments as this author taketh it, who seem- 
eth to repute it for an inconvenience, to say that the accidents of 
wine do sour and wax vinegar. But Ulpian °, a man of notable 
learning, is not afraid to write in the law. In venditionibus, De 
cofUrahenda emptume, in the pandects, that of wine and vinegar 
there is prope eadem ousia, in manner one substance, wherein he 
showeth himself far against this author's skill, which I put for an 
example to show, that natural operations have had in natural 
men's judgments divers considerations, one sometime repugnant 
to another, and yet the authors of both opinions called philoso- 
phers all. Among which some thought, for example, they spake 
wisely that esteemed all things to alter as swiftly as the water 
runneth in the stream, and thought therefore no man could utter 

« [Read Smith, fol. 64. [1580.] 


a word being the same man in the end of the word that he was BOOK 
when he began to speak, and used a similitude : Like as a man 
standing in one place cannot touch the same one water twice in 
a running stream, no more can a man be touched the same man 
t¥nce, but he altereth as swiftly as doth the stream. These were 
laughed to scorn, yet they thought themselves wise in natural 
speculation. Aristotle, that is much esteemed and worthily, 
fancied a first matter in all things to be one ; in which considera- 
tion he seemeth to be as extreme in a stay, as the other fond phi- 
losophers were in monng. By which two extremities I condemn 
not natural speculation, wherewith I think God pleased for man 
to marvel in contemplation of his inferior works, and to tame his 
rash wit in the inexplicable variety of it, but to use it so, as to 
make it an open adversary to religion, it is, me seemeth, without 
all purpose. 

7 The doctrine of transubstantiation doth not teach no earthly 
thing to remain in the sacrament, but contrariwise, that the visible 
form of bread and wine is there as the visible sign of the sacrament, 
and to be the same in greatness, in thickness, in weight, in savour, 
in taste, in property also to corrupt, putrefy, and nourish, as it did 

S before, and yet the substance of those visible creatures to be con- 
verted into the substance, as Emissene saith, oi the body of 
Christ. And here will reason do service to faith, to say if there 
be a conversion in deed, as faith teacheth, and none of the acci- 
dents be converted, then the substance is converted ; for in every 
thing all is substance and accidents, but the accident be not 
changed, and yet a change there is ; it must needs be then that 
substance is changed. Which deduction reason will make, and 
so agree with transubstantiation in convenient due service. And 
thus I have gotten reason's good-will, whatsoever this author 
saith, and from the ground of faith have by reason deduced such 
a conclusion to prove transubstantiation, as, unless he destroy the 
true faith of the presence of Christ's very body, which he cannot, 
must needs be allowed. 

And as for natural operation of putrefying, engendering worms, 
burning, and such experiences, which being the substance of 
bread absent, this author thinketh cannot be so, when he hath 
thought throughly, he can of his thought conclude it only to be 

9 a marvel, and it be so, as against the common rules of philosophy, 
wherein as me seemeth it were a nearer way, as we be admonished 


BOOK to leave searching of " how" of the work of God in the mystery 
of Christ's presence, being that the celestial part of the sacrament. 

BO not to search " how** in the experience of the operation of 
nature, of the visible earthly part of the sacrament. When God 
sent manna in the desert, the people saw many marvels in it, be* 
sides the common operation of nature, and yet they never troubled 
themself with " hows/* And as one very well wnteth, it is con- 
sonant, that as there is a great miracle in the work of God to 
make there present the substance of the body of Christ, so like- 
wise to knowledge the miracle in the absence of the substance of 
bread, and both the heavenly and earthly part of the sacrament 
to be miraculous, and so many miracles to be Joined together in 
one, agreeth with the excellency of the sacrament. As for the objec- 
tions this author maketh in this matter, be such as he findeth in 
those scholastical writers that discuss as they may^ or labour there- 
about wherewith to satisfy idle imaginations, and to make learned 
men prompt and ready to say somewhat to these trifles, whose ar- lo 
guments this author taketh for his principal foundation. For plain 
resolution and avoiding whereof, if I would now for my part 
bring forth their solutions and answers, there were a part of school 
theology so brought into English, to no great praise of either of 
our learnings, but our vain labour, to set abroad other men's 
travails to trouble rude wits with matter not necessary, and by 
such unreverent disputing and altercation to hinder the truth. 
Finally^ all that this author rehearseth of absurdity, repugneth in 
his estimation only to the conclusion of philosophy, which should 
nothing move the humble simplicity of faith in a Christian man, 
who marvelleth at God's works and reputeth them true, although 
he cannot comprehend the ways and means of them. 


Here, in the beginning of this chapter, it is a strange i 
thing to me, that you should think strangeness in my 
saying, that natural reason and operation joined to God^s 
word should be of great moment to confirm any truth, not 
that they add any authority to God'*s word, but that they 
help our infirmity; as the sacraments do to God'^s promises, 
which promises in themselves be most certain and true. For 
did not the eating and drinking of Christ, his labouring and 
Acts X. sweating, his agony and pangs of death, confirm the true 


faith of his incarnation ? And^ did not his eating with the BOOK 
Apostles confirm and stablish their faith of his resurrection ? ^^' 
Did not the sight of Christ and feeling of his wounds induce 
Thomas to believe that Christ was risen? when neither the John zx. 
report of the devout woman, nor yet of the Apostles which Lukezxiv. 
did see him, could cause him to believe Christ^s resurrec- 
tion ? And when they took our Saviour Christ for a spirit, 
did not he cause them by their sight and feeling of his flesh 
and bones, to believe that he was very man, and no spirit, 
as they phantasied ? Which sensible proofs were so far from 
derogation of faith, that they were a sure establishment 
thereof. Wherefore if your understanding cannot reach 
this doctrine, it is in deed very slender in godly things. 

> And as for my reason of vacuum^ you have not yet an- 
swered thereto, for nature sufiereth not any place to be 
without some substance, which by means of his quantity 
fiUeth the place. And quantity without substance to fill any 
place, is so far from the rules of nature, that by order of 
nature, quantity without substance hath neither filling nor 
being. And although I do not say that by the doctrine of 
transubstantiation there remaineth nothing, (so that all that 
you speak to answer that matter, is to no purpose, but res 
vacua^ yet by the doctrine of transubstantiation joined unto 
nature there should remain utterly nothing in deed: for 
substance remaineth none by your doctrine of transubstan- 
tiation, and without substance can be no accidents by the 
rules of nature. Therefore comparing your doctrine and 
nature together, either you must recant your doctrine of 
transubstantiation, or confess that nothing remaineth, or at 
the least grant that your teaching repugneth to the order of 
nature, which sufBceth for me in this place, where my pur- 
pose is only to show, how the doctrine of transubstantiation 
is against nature and reason. 

3 Now where you so often speak of the visible form of The word 
bread remaining, by this word " form" you sweetly deceive ^"°' 
yourself, thinking that it doth much advance your faith of 
transubstantiation, understanding by that word the acci- 
dences, similitudes, and likeness without substance remain- 

VOL. III. c c 



Philip. It. 

BOOK ingy misunderstanding both holy Scripture and the andent 
^'* doctors. St. Paul speaking of Chrisf s incarnation saith, thcU 
he being mjbrm of God, did humble himself taking upon 
him thejbrm of man : by which words St. Paul meant not, 
that Christ was like unto God, and not God in deed, nor 
yet that he was like unto man, and not very man in deed, 
but that he was and is very God and very man, having two 
substances, one of his Godhead and the other of his man- 
hood, united together in one person. And the ancient doc- 
tors writing of this sacrament, when they speak of the 
forms of bread and wine, do use this vocable *^ form,^ as 
St. Paul useth it, to signify very bread and very wine, or 
the substances of bread and wine, and not the similitude or 
likeness of bread and wine without the substances, as you 
phantasy and imagine. 

And you after this sort, wresting holy Scriptures and 4 
doctors for maintenance of your error of transubstanda- 
tion, do lead yourself craftily into another heinous error, (if 
this your proposition be true, that the grant of one sub- 
stance is a denial of any other,) which is, to deny Christ 
either to be very God or man. For by your sentence, if he 
in substance be God, then can he not have the substance of 
man ; for the grant of one substance is a denial of any 
other, as ye say. 

And like as you do err in misunderstanding of the Scrip- 
ture and doctors, so do you en* in reason and judgment of 5 
things, your own eyes, nose, mouth, and fingers, bearing 
witness against you of your wilful error and folly. For 
what man is living, which hath his right wits, that can be- 
lieve as you teach, that the proper object of every sense 
remaineth, that is to say, colour, taste, savour, &c. and yet 
the former substance of bread and wine is gone ? And here, 
to further your belief of transubstantiation, you do exag- 
gerate your accustomed absurdity of impanation of Christ^s 
body, as if every man that believeth not your error of tran- 
substantiation, must of necessity fall into the error of impa- 
nation, or as if I defended the said impanation. But whe- 
ther I defended any such fond opinion or not, or whether I 



have heran sufficiently answered the papists, I refer to the BOOK 
judgment of all wise and learned men, that be any thing ^^' 
indiflPerent, which have read my book. 

And as concerning natural reason, where you say it will 

5 agree with the doctrine of transubstantiation well enough^ 
if the faith of the true presence of Chrisf s very body be 
true : for answer hereto I say, that if your fantastical belief 
of the real presence of Chrisf s natural body in the sacra- 
ment were as true as the Gospel, as none opinion can be 
more erroneous and fond, yet would both faith and reason 
judge that there were still bread : faith, because holy Scrip- 
ture manifestly saith so : reason, because it is so, not only to 
all our senses, but also in all the effects and operations of 
bread. And reason cannot discern, but that Chrisf s body 
may be as well present with the substance of bread as with 
the accidents, and that rather also, forasmuch as you con- 
fess yourself, that after the rules of nature, quantity filleth 
the place rather than substance. And so may reason judge 
the body of Christ to be the body of Christ, and yet the 
bread to be the bread still, and wine to be wine and no 
bread, nor none other confusion of natures to be there 
against reason. 

^ And as touching natural operation, in the handling there- 
of you show your ignorance in natural philosophy, which 
teacheth, that in mutation from one quality to another is 
required one substance to receive both the qualities. For 
white of itself cannot be made black, nor cold hot ; but one 
substance may be now hot, now cold, now black, now white. 
As cold water may be made hot, although cold in itself 
cannot be hot. Therefore you cannot blame me, to think 
in this a great inconvenience and absurdity in nature, that 
sweetness of itself should change into sourness, when the 
substance of wine is gone, and no substance remaining to 
receive this mutation : this matter being so clean contrary to 
the precepts and rules of natural philosophy. 

And I marvel that you cannot see, how much Ulpian uipian. 
whom you allege, maketh against yourself, and with my 
saying, that both in wine and vinegar remaineth substance, 

c c2 


BOOK which is changed from sweet to sour, so that the sweet of 
^^' itself is not made sour, but that substance which before 
was sweet, is after sour. And therefore what great skill 
you have in dting of Ulpian, to prove that the acddents of 
wine without substance do sour and wax vinegar, let the 
wise reader judge. But Ulpian seemeth to me to have 
another sense than all men can perceive : but I will not dis- 
cuss the mind of Ulpian, because I am no lawyer, lest you 
should cast the proverb in my teeth, Ne sutor ulira ere- 

But to what purpose you should bring in the diverdty of 
judgments in natural operations, and the extreme fondness 
of philosophers, some in moving, some in staying, I cannot 
devise, except it be the permission of God, that as some of 
the philosophers by their fond opinions in nature, made 
themselves laughing-stocks to all men of reason, so should 
ye papists do. And yet so much more is the papistical 
opinion of transubstantiation to be laughed to scorn of all 
men, as it passeth the fondness of all the philosophers, and 
that so far, that the fondest of the philosophers would have 
laughed at it, and have clapped it out of their schools with 
one consent, as an opinion more meet for frantic and mad 
men, than for men of natural reason. And as fond opin- 
ions as some philosophers had, yet was there none that so 
far erred in reason, to say that accidences might stand with- 
out any substance, but all with one uniform consent agreed, 
that accidences had none other being or remaining, but in 
their substances. And yet if the faith of our religion taught 
us the contrary, then reason must yield to faith. But your 
doctrine of transubstantiation is as directly contrary to the 
plain words of Scripture, as it is against the order of natu- 
ral reason. 

And where you say that the doctrine of transubstantia* 7 
tion doth not teach that no earthly thing remaineth, but 
that the visible form of bread and wine remaineth the same 
in greatness, in thickness, in weight, in savour, in taste, in 
property also to corrupt, putrefy, and nourish, as it did be- 
fore, tell plainly, I pray you, what thing it is which you call 


the visible fonn of bread and wine, whether it be an acci- BOOK 
dence or a substance^ and if it be an accidence, show whe- ' 

ther it be a quantity or quality, or what other accidence it 
is, that all men may understand what thing it is, which, as 
you say, is the same in greatness, thickness, weight, savour, 
and other properties. 

8 And where you allege Emissene for the conversion of the EmisscD. 
substance of bread and wine, this conversion, as Emissene 
saith, and as I have declared before, is like to our con- 
version in baptism, where outwardly is no alteration of sub- 
stance, for no sacramental alteration maketh alteration of 

the substance, but the marvellous and secret alteration is 
inwardly in our souls. And as the water in baptism is not 
changed, but aacramentally, that is to say, made a sacra- 
ment of spiritual regeneration, which before was none, so in 
the Lord'^s Supper, neither the substance nor accidences of 
bread and wine be changed but sacramentally ; but the alter- 
ation is inwardly in the souls of them that spiritually be re- 
freshed and nourished with Christ'^s flesh and blood. And 
this our faith teacheth us, and natural reason doth good ser- 
vice to faith herein against your ima^ned transubstantiation. 
So that you have not gotten reason^s good will nor consent 
to your vain doctrine of transubstantiation, although you 
had proved your real presence, which hitherto you have 
not done ; but you have taken great pain to shoot away all 
your bolts in vain, missing quite and clean both the prick 
and the whole butt. 

9 And yet in the end you take a good ready way for your 
own advantage, like unto a man that had shot all his shafts 
clean wide from the butt, and yet would bear all men in 
hand that he had hit the prick: and when other should 
go about to measure how far his shafts were wide from the 
butt, he would take up the matter himself, and command 
them to leave measuring, and believe his own saying, that 
his arrows stuck all fast in the mark, and that this were the 
nearest way to finish the contention : even so do you in this 
matter, willing all men to leave searching of ^^ how*^ in the 
mystery of Christ'^s presence in the sacrament, saying that 

c c8 


BOOK to be the nearest way. And it were a much nearer way 
for you in deed, if all men would leave searching of " how," 

and without ground or reason believe as well your transub- 
stantiation as the corporal presence of Christ^s body, only 

1 Pet iii. because you do say it is so. But St. Peter requireth every 
*'* '' Christian man to be ready to render a reason of his faith to 
every one that asketh ; and St. Paul requireth in a Chris- 
tian bishop, that he should be able to exhort by wholesome 
doctrine, and to convince the gainsayers, and not to require 
other men to give faith unto him without asking of ^' how**^ 
or ^^ why," only because he saith so himself. The old ca- 
tholic authors tell wherefore Christ called bread his body, 
and how Christian people feed of his body. And the blessed 

Luke i. Virgin Mary asked how she should conceive a child, never 
having company with man. And you tell yourself how 
Christ is in heaven, how in us, and how in the sacrament, 
declaring all to be but after a spiritual manner. And what 
manner of men be you, that we may not ask you ** how," to 
render a reason of your transubstantiation, being a matter 
by you only devised, clearly without God^s word. 

Miracles. But at length, when you have sweat well favouredly in 
answering to mine arguments of natural reason and natural 
operation, you be fain to confess a great part to be true, 
and to turn all together into miracles, and that into sucb 
kind of miracles, as the old catholic writers never know- 
ledged nor touched in none of their works. For besides the 
chief miracle, which you say is in the conversion of the 
substance of bread into the substance of Christ's body, and 
of the wine into his blood, there be other miracles, when the 
forms of wine turn into vinegar, and when bread mouldeth, 
or a man doth vomit it, or the mouse eateth it, or the fire 
bumeth it, or worms breed in it ; and in all like chances, 
God still worketh miracles, yea even in poisoning with the 
consecrated wine. And the multitude of such miracles, as 
you do judge, pertaineth to the excellency of the sacrament, 
whereas among the school authors this is a common received 
proposition, non esse ponenda miracula sine necessitate. 
And where you say that I make my principal foundation lo 


upon the arguments of the scholastical writers, although BOOK 

mine arguments deduced out of the scholastical authors be ! 

unto you insoluble, and therefore you pass them over un- 
answered, yet I make no foundation at all upon them, but 
my very foundation is only upon God^s word, which found- 
ation is so sure, that it will never fail. And mine argu- 
ments in this place I bring in only to this end, to show how 
far your imagined transubstantiation is, not only from God's 
word, but also from the order and precepts of nature, and 
how many and portentous absurdities you fall into by 
means of the same. Which it seemeth you do confess by 
holding your peace, without making answer thereto. But 
now let us consider what is next in my book. 

[See vol. ii. p. 818—320. « The papistical doctrine'' 

*' contrary thereunto.'"] 


I As in answering to the third chapter, I ha?e showed how rea- 
son received into faith*8 service, doth not strive with transubstan- 
tiation, but agreeth well with it : so I trust to show how man*8 
senses^ which this author calleth the five wits, be no such direct 
adversaries to transubstantiation, as a matter whereof they can no 
skill '. And therefore to a question this author asketh in the end 
of the second column in the twenty-second leaf, which is this : 
** If we believe our senses in the accidents, why may we not do the 
'* like of the substance V* I answer thus, that the senses can no skill 
of substance as learned men speak of substance, nor this author 
neither, if a man should judge him by this question. 

For and a sensual man, one that foUoweth his rude senses, would 
say, ' Come hither, master scholar : I hear much talking in this 
' world of substance and accidence $' and if he were of a merry 
nature, would say his little boy had learned his accidence, but 
himself wotteth not perfectly what substance meaneth, as clerks 
term it, and bringing forth a piece of bread, another of cheese, 
and a pot of ale, would desire the scholar to learn him the sub- 
stance of them, and show it with his finger, and show him also 
what difference between the substance of bread, cheese, and the 

' Contrarium habetur in libro vocato. The DeviPt Sophistry, fol. 6, 
10, 11, 19, 15, 21. [1580.] . 

C c 4 



BOOK ale ; I think the scholar with the advice of all at Cambridge, and 
^^' Oxford also, could not do it ; and the more the scholar should 
travail with such a rude man, so sensual in the matter, I think he 
should be the further off, unless the sensual man would set apart 
his rude wits, and learn of the scholar some reasonable under- 
standing, which is, that the substance is the inward nature, where- 2 
in those that be accidents do naturally stay, the quantity imme- 
diately, and the rest by mean of quantity, in which the rest may 
be said to stay ', which words were new divinity to this man, who 
touching the bread would ask the scholar roundly, ' Callest thou 
' not this substance, this good thick piece that I handle? The scho- 
lar would answer, 'Sir, as I shall answer you, you will say I play 
the sophister, for I must speak learning to you that you can no 
skill of, and be not angry though I tell you so ; for and ye were 
learned, ye would not ask me this question ; for substance, as it is 
properly understanded to be of this or that thing, is properly nei- 
ther seen by itself nor felt, and yet by reason comprehended truly 
to be in that we feel or see ; nevertheless in common speech, and 
in the speech of such as for the purpose speak after the common 
capacity, the word substance is used to signify that is seen or felt ; 
and so ye may say ye see the substance or feel the substance of 
bread, and yet ye do in deed see but the colour, and by it the 
largeness, and feel the heat or coldness, moisture or dryness, 
weight or lightness, hardness or softness, thickness and thinness. 
If ye will learn what substance is, ye must leave your outward 4 
senses, and consider in your understanding, how in every thing 
that is there is a stay which we call a substance, being the prin- 
cipal part of every thing 5 which failing, we say that special thing 
not to be. As where the substance of bread is not, there that 
special thing bread is not, because bread is as every other natural 
visible thing is, of two parts, substance and accidents ; now if the 
one part, that is to say substance, be not there, which can be but 
by miracle, then is no bread properly there, because the one and 
chief part is not there -, and yet I say not nothing is there, for the 
other part remaining hath a being as God's visible creature, and 
may be called the visible part of bread and therefore, the outward 
kind and form of bread, and the appearance of bread, and a true 
sensible part of bread, and therefore be called also by the name of 
bread ; not that it is so properly, but after the common speech and 
capacity of men; and be called the nature of bread, signifying the 


' property, and the matter of bread, signiiying the grossness.* The BOOK 
rude man I think would bereat say, ' Here is sophistry in deed, for ^^' 
* here is substance and no substance, matter of bread and no bread, 
' iq>pearance of bread and no bread, called bread and no bread : this 
' is plain juggling where it happeneth.* Wherein this rude man, for 
want of true understanding of the words and perfect consideration 
of the matter, speaketh thus fondly ; who if he should thereupon 
require the scholar to show him some difference of the very sub- 
stance between bread, and cheese, and ale, what could the learned 
scholar answer here, but even frankly declare his ignorance, and 
say ' I know none ;' which is as much to say as, ' I know there is a 
' difference, but I wot not what it is.* Whereunto I trow the rude 
man would say to the scholar, ' Then art thou with all thy learning 
' as very a fool as I, to speak of a difference and cannot tell what it 
' is.* Now if the scholar should utter even the extremity of his 
learning in proper terms, and say, ' I know bread is no cheese, and 
' cheese is none ale ; and of their accidental parts I can in deed 
' show differences, but of the very substance none :' the rude man, 
if his nature were not over dull, would laugh roundly to hear a 
scholar utter for a point of learning, that bread is no cheese, and 
cheese is none ale, which whoso knoweth not^ is a very fool ; and 
merrily to knit up the matter, would keep the accidents of his 
bread, cheese, and ale for himself and give the substance to the 
scholar, if he can divide it, as a reward for his cunning, to his bet- 
ter nurture. 

And this I write after this gross sort, to show that this matter 
of substance is not commonly understanded as senses exercised in 
learning perceive it, and how man's outward senses cannot, as this 
author would have it, be judges of the inward nature of substance, 
which reason persuadeth to be, using the service of the senses for 
induction of the knowledge of it^ in which judgment upon their 
report happeneth many times much deceit. Titus Livius speak- coena 
3 eth of a ereat number of divers dishes of meat made in a solemn Cbalciden- 
supper, whereat the guests wondered to see such a variety at that Livias in 5. 

time of the year, and when they demanded of it, answer was ^^ ^^^ 

made, the substance was but one, all hog's fleshy so as the altera- nico. 

tion in the accidents deceived their judgments. That stone, which [^S^o.] 

5 among many thought to have some skill, hath been taken for a 

precious diamond, hath after by cunning lapidaries been judged to 

be but a white sapphire, and contrariwise. So easily may our 

judgment upon the report of our senses fall in error ; not that the 


BOOK senses be properly deorived, but rather the man that is grossly 
sensual, and judgeth fondly by them. For the very substance is 
not the proper object of any of the 6ve wits, but of their report 
considered in reason denied, and sometime guessed at, whereof 
ensueth great error and quid pro quo among the poticaries 
and learned also in things strange, whereof they have but acci- 
dental marks. 

Wherefore upon consideration of the premises it may easily ap- 
pear, how the question of this author, why the senses be not be- 
lieved in knowledge of substance as in knowledge of accidents, 
may be reasonably answered. And then if the Judgment of reason 
in the estimation of God*s natural works, and denying this or that 
substance, when by accidents it should seem otherwise, reason 
doth stay sensuality; and when men of experience, knowledge, and 
credit, have determined such a certain stone to be a very true 
diamond, other ignorant will be ashamed to say the contrary : 
and if a man fearing himself deceived to have bought one kind of 
drugs for another, and yet mistrusting wisely his own judgment, 
having caused it to be viewed by men of knowledge, good faith, and 
honesty, if they affirm it to be the very thing, this man will then 
condemn his own imagination, and upon credit call it so, and take 
it so to be ; wherefore, if in these things I say, reason doth in a 
man stay sensuality, and if knowledge with honesty ruleth the 
judgment rude of understanding ; and finally, if credit among men 
be so much r^arded, how much more convenient is it, that faith 
in God*s word (wherein can be no decat as there is in men) 
should alter and change man's judgment in reason, and bring it 
into the obedience of faith. Of that is bread after the judg- 
ment of our reason, after the report of our senses, Christ deter- 
mineth unto us the substance of that to be his body, saying, Has 6 
is my body ; why shall not now a true Christian man answer ever 
according to hb fiiith, to say and profess the same to be the sub- 
stance of Christ's body, upon credit of Christ's words, as well as 
the carnal man will upon report of his senses conclude in reason 
there to be the substance of bread ? whereby is not taken away 
the credit of our senses, as this author supposeth, which have their 
objects still true as they had before. For the colour, greatness, 7 
savour, and taste, all remain truly with the experiences of them as 
before. Upon whose report, reason nevertheless, now reduced to 
the obsequy of faith, forbeareth reverently to conclude against the 
truth of faith, but according to faith coufesseth the substance to 


be the very substance of Cbrist*s body^ and the accidents to re- BOOK 
main in their very true nature, because faith teacheth not the con- ^^' 
trary, and that it agreeth with the rule of faith so to be» . and 
therefore remaineth a very true greatness, thickness, and weight, 
which may be called in common speech, substance, signifying the 
outward nature. And in that sense Theodorete, reasoning with 
an heretic, seemeth to call it^ because having spoken of sub- 
stance remaining, he dedareth what he meaneth by it, adding, 
" It may be seen and felt as before,*' which is not the nature of 
substance properly, but by like common speech, that remaineth 
may be called matter^ as Origen called it ', wherein abo remaineth 
true savour and taste, with true property to corrupt, or putrefy, 
and also nourish ; God so ordering the use of the creature of bread 
and likewise wine in this mystery, as the inward nature of them, 
(which in deed is the substance, but only comprehended in rea- 
son and understanding,) is converted into the most precious sub- 
stance of Christ's body and blood, which is in deed a substance 
there present, by God's omnipotency only to be comprehended 
by foith, so far as may be understanded of man*s weakness and 

8 And where this author putteth a danger^ if senses be not trust- 
ed, there is a gap open to the Valentinians and Marcionists, and 
therefore bringeth in the feeling of St. Thomas ; hereunto I say, 
that the truth of that feeling dependeth upon a true belief, accord- 
ing to the Scriptures, that Christ was very man ; for else the body 
glori6ed of Christ, (as St Gr^;ory noteth ') was not of the own 
glorified nature then either visible or palpable, but therein Christ 
condescended to man's infirmity, and as he was truth itself, left 
that a true testimony to such as humbly were disposed by grace 
to receive it } not to convince heretics^ who can devise wayward 
answers to the external acts of Christ, as now-a-days they delude 
the miraculous entering of Christ to his disciples, the doors being 
shut. Our faith of the true manhood in Christ is truly believed, 
by true preaching thereof, and by the Scriptures -, not by the out- 

9 ward senses of men, which altogether we must confess could be 
no certain inevitable proof thereof. And therefore Christ appear- 
ing to his disciples going into Emaus, opened the Scriptures to 
them, for the proof of his death that he suffered as very man^ and 
yet he used also in some part to preach to their senses, with sen- 

k Homil. Patch, 26. 


BOOK sible exhibition of himself unto them. And so all Christ's doings 


_ which were most true, do bear testimony to the truth, but in 
their degree of testimony ; and the feeling of St. Thomas, being 
(as St. Gregory saith) miraculous, serveth for proof of another 
thing, that God's work in miracle doth not impair the truth of 
the thing wrought; and so St. Thomas touched then Christ as 
truly by miracle, after his resurrection in his body glorified, as if 
he had touched his body before glorification. Finally, in Christ's 
acts or his ordinances be no illusions, all is truth and perfect lo 
truth, and our senses in the visible forms of bread and wine be 
not illuded, but have their proper objects in those accidents, and 
reason in carnal understanding brought and subdued in obsequy 
to foith, doth in the estimation of the host consecrate yield to 
faith, according whereunto we confess truly the same to be the 
body of Christ 

Where this author woidd all the papists to lay all their heads 1 1 
together, &c. I know no such papists ; but this I say without far- 
ther counsel, which this author with all his counsel shall not avoid : 
we believe most certainly the resurrection of our fiesh^ and be per- 
suaded by catholic teaching, that the same flesh, by participation of 
Christ's godly flesh in the sacrament, shall be made incorruptible ; 
and yet not after the Judgment of our senses, and conclusions ga- 
thered of them, considering the manner of the continual con- 
sumption of the said bodies ; whereof some philosophers have at 
length after their reason declared their mind, whom Christian 
men contemn with all the experience of senses, which they allege 
being vehement in that matter. We read in Scripture of the 
feeding of angeb, when Loth received them. 

As in your answer to the third chapter of my book you i 
have done nothing but dallied and trifled, even so do you 
likewise in the fourth chapter^ and yet far more unseemly 
than in the third. For doth it become a Christian bishop, 
of a matter of religion and a principal article of our faith to 
make a matter of bread and cheese ? And of the holy Sup- 
per of the Lord to make a resemblance of a dinner of hog^s 
Tbe rade flesh ? And yet for persuasion of your purpose^ you make, 
learned AS it Were, a play in a dialogue between a rude man and a 
><^i^- learned scholar, wherein the matter is so learnedly handled^ 


that the ample rude man showeth himself to have more BOOK 
knowledge than both you and your learned scholar. And ^^* 
why you should bring in this matter I know not, except it 
be to show your ignorance to be as great in log^c and phi- Absur- 
lofiophy as it is in divinity. For what an ignorance is this, 
to say that a man can know no difierence between one sub- 
stance and another, and that substances be not judged by 
any senses? And that all natural things be of these two 
parts, of substances and accidents ; and that their accidents 
be part of their substances, and be called their substances, 
their natures, and matters ? Was there ever any such learn- 
ing uttered before this time ? May not all men now evi- 
dently perceive into what a strait your error hath driven 
you, that you have none other defence but to fly to such 
absurdities as be against the judgment of the whole world ? 
Would you make men believe, that they know not the sub- 
stance of bread from drink, nor of chalk from cheese? 
Would you lead the world into this error, that Christ was 
never in deed seen, heard, nor felt, when he walked here 
with his Apostles? Did he not prove the very truth of his 
very flesh and bones by aght, saying, A spirit hath not Lake ult. 
^flesh and bones as tfou see me have f And although sub- 
stances be not seen and known to our senses, but by their 
acddents, yet be they in deed known, and properly known, 
and truly known by their accidents, and more properly seen 
than their accidents be. For the accidents be rather the 
means to know the substance by, than the things that be 
known. Is not wine known from beer by the taste, and 
mustard from sugar ? Is not one man known by his voice 
from another? and a shalm from a drum? And is not a 
man discerned from a beast, and one man from another by 
sight? But when you turn up all speeches, all reason, and all 
manner of knowledge, it is less to be marvelled that you turn 
up divinity also, wherein you can less skill than in the rest. 
And where you say, that the senses can no skill of sub- 
stances, because they may be deceived therein, so may they 
also be in the accidents. For do not the sun and moon 
sometime look red by means of the vapours between us and 


BOOK them ? And doth not spectacles make all things look of the 
same colour that they be of ? And if you hold up your fin- 

ger directly between your eyes and a candle, looking full at 
the candle, your finger shall seem two^ and if you look full 
at your finger, the candle shall seem two. And an ague 
maketh sweet things seem bitter, and that is sweet to one, is 
bitter to another. And if a man having very hot hands, 
and another very cold, if they handle both one thing, the 
one shall think it hot, and the other cold. So that the 
senses may err as well in the accidents as in the substances, 
and cannot err in the substances, except they err also in the 

But in speaking of substance, you declare such a sub- a 

SabiUnoe. Stance, as never was, nor never shall be, phantasying sub- 
stance by your imagination to be a thing in itself^ separated 
from all accidents ; and so confounding the substances of all 
things, and mixing heaven and earth t(^ther, you make all 
substances but one substance without any difference. And 

I Cor. XT. where Almighty Grod hath taught by his word that there be 
heavenlybodies and earthly bodies, and that every seed 
hath his own proper body, and that all flesh is not one flesh, 
but the flesh of men, of beasts, of fish, and of fowl be diverse, 
you teach by your words, that all flesh is one flesh, and all 3 
substances one substance, and so confound you all flesh 
with hog^s flesh, making an hotch-potch like unto him that 
made a great variety of dishes all of hog^s flesh. For take 
away the accidents, and I pray you what difference is be- 
tween the bodily substance of the sun and the moon, of a 
man and a beast, of fish and flesh ? between the body of one 
beast and another, one herb and another, one tree and 
another; between a man and a woman? yea, between 
our body and Christ'^s? and generally between any one 
corporal thing and another? For is not the distinction of 
all bodily substances known by their accidents, without 
the which a man'^s body cannot be known to be a man'^s 
body? And as substances cannot be substances without ac- 
cidents, so the nature of acddents cannot be without sub- 
stances, whose b^g and definition is to be in substances. 


But as you speak of substances and accidents against BOOK 
Scripture, sense, reason, experience, and all learning, so do ^^' 

4 you also speak manifestly against yourself. For you say 
that every thing that is, must have a substance wherdn it is 
stayed, and that every natural visible thing is of two parts, 
of substance and accidents, and yet by your transubstan- 
tiation you leave no substance at all to stay the accidents 
of the bread and wine. 

And moreover this is a marvellous teaching of you, tOAcddeDts. 
say, that the accidents of bread be one part of bread, and 
be called the outward kind of bread, the sensible part of 
bread, the nature and matter of bread, and very bread. 
Was there ever any such learning taught before this day, 
that accidents should be called parts of substances, the na- 
ture of substances, the matter of substances, and the very 
substances themselves ? If ever any man so wrote, tell who 
it is, or else knowledge the truth, that all these matters be 
invented by your own imagination, whereof the rude man 
may right well say, ^ Here is sophistry indeed and plain jug- 
* gling/ But you convey not your juggling so craftily, but 
that you be taken, as the Greeks term it, ^irai;ro^/>y, even 
with the manner. 

5 Now as concerning your expert lapidary, if his senses be A lapidary, 
deceived, how shall he judge a true stone from a counterfeit ? 

Doth he not diligently look upon it with his sight, to dis- 
cern truly of it ? For tell me, I pray you, how a man with- 
out senses shall judge a true diamond ? Put out his eyes, 
and is not a white sapphire, a diamond, and a glass, all one in 
his judgment ? Mary, if he be a man of clear sight, of true 
knowledge and experience in the judgment of stones, and be 
therewithal a man of good faith and honesty, as you tell the 
tale, they that be ignorant;, will be ashamed to control his 
judgment But if he be blind, or be a man neither of faith 
nor honesty, but his experience hath been ever exercised to 
deceive all that trust him, and to sell them white sapphires 
for diamonds, then no man that wise is, will take a glass or 
sapphire at his hands of trust, although he say it be a true 
diamond . Even so likewise the papists, being so accustomed 


BOOK with their merchandises of glistering glasses and counterfdt 
* drugs to deceive the world, what wise men will trust them 
with their feigned transubstantiation, being so manifestly 
against the plain words of Scripture, against all reason, 
sense, and ancient writers? And although you have taken 
never so great labour and pains in this place to answer mine 
arguments, (wherein you do nothing else but show your ig- 
norance in philosophy and logic,) yet all is in vain, excq>t 
you could prove transubstantiation to be a matter of our 
faith ; which b^ng not proved, all that you have spoken here 
serveth to no purpose, nor concludeth nothing. For you 
are not so ignorant in sophistry, but you know well enough, 
that of a false antecedent can no consequent directly follow. 

And as concerning these words of Christ, This if my^ 
body^ by your own teaching in these words he called bread 
his body, which can be no formal and proper speech, but 
spoken by a figure, as the order of the text plainly declareth, 
and all the old authors do testify. 

And where you say, that although the substance of bread 7 
and wine be gone, yet the senses have their proper object 
still remaining, as they had before, that is to say, the colours, 
greatness, thickness, weight, savour, and taste ; express then, 
I pray you plainly, what thing it is that is coloured, great, 
thin or thick, heavy or light, savoury or tasted ? For seeing 
you confess that these do remain, you must confess also 
that there remaineth bread. For that greatness, thickness, 
thinness, colours, and weight be not in the body of Christ, 
nor in the air, which cannot be weighed ; and in something 
they must needs be, for by your own saying, every thing 
hath a substance to stay it ; therefore they must needs be in 
the substance of bread and wine. And to say that the ac- 
cidents of bread be the natures, matters, and substances 
thereof, is nothing else but to declare to the world, that 
you make words to ^gnify at your pleasure. 

But other shift have you none to defend your transub- 
stantiation, but to devise such monstrous kinds of speeches as 
never was heard of before. For you say that the nature, 
matter, and substance of bread and wine remain not, but be 


changed into the body and blood of Christ: the old writers BOOK 
say directly contrary, that the nature, matter, and substance ^^' 

remain. " Christ," saith Theodorete, " called bread and Theodore- 
^^ wine his body and blood, and yet changed not their na^ 
" tures."" And again he saith, " The bread and wine after 
'^ the consecration lose not their proper nature, but keep 
their former substance, form, and figure, which they had 
before.*" And Origene saith, that ^' the matter of bread Origeoe. 
availeth nothing, but as concerning the material part 
thereof it goeth down into the belly and is avoided down- 
^* ward.*" And Gelasius saith, that '^ the nature and sub- GelasiuK. 
'^ stance of bread and wine cease not to be." Now seeing 
that your doctrine, who teach that the nature, matter, and 
substance of bread and wine be changed and remain not, is 
as clean contrary to these old writers, with many other, as 
black is contrary to white and light to darkness, you have 
no remedy to defend your error and wilful opinion, but to 
imagine such portentous and wonderful kinds of speeches to 
be spoken by these authors, as never were uttered before by 
no man ; that is to say, that the outward appearance and ac- 
cidences of any thing should be called the nature, matter, and 
substance thereof. But such monsters had you rather bring 
forth, than you would in one jot relent in your error once 
by you uttered, and undertaken to be by you defended. 
And yet bring you nothing for the proof of your saying, 
but that if the author^s words should be understand as they 
be spoken, this should follow thereof, that bread and wine 
should be seen and felt ; which as no man doubteth of, but 
all men take it for a most certain truth, so you take it for a 
great inconvenience and absurdity. So far be you forced 
in this matter to vary in speech and judgment from the sen- 
tence and opinion of all men. 
8 And as touching the belief of St. Thomas, although he Thomas, 
believed certainly that Christ was a man, yet he believed 
not that Christ was risen, and appeared to the Apostles, but 
thought rather that the Apostles were deceived by some vi- 
sion or spirit, which appeared to them in likeness of Christ, 
which he thought was not he in deed. And so thought the 

VOL. III. D d 



BOOK Apostles themselves, until Christ said, VideU manus meaa 
^^' et pedes, quia ego ipse sum : palpaie et videte, quiaspiriius 

Luc. ult camem et ossa non hahent, sicut me videHs habere. See 
my hands and my feet, Jw' I am even he : grope and see^ 
Jbr spirits have no flesh and bones j as you see that I have. 
John zx. And so thought also St. Thomas, until such time as he put 
his hands into Christ^s side and felt his wounds, and by his 
sense of feeling perceived that it was Christ'^s very body, and 
no spirit nor phantasy, as before he believed. And so in 
St. Thomas the truth of feeling depended not upon the true 
belief of Christ^s resurrection, but the feeling of his senses 
brought him from misbelief unto the right and true faith of 
Gregorius. that matter. And as for St. Gregory, he speaketh no such 
things as you report, that the gloriiSed body of Christ was 
of the own nature neither visible nor palpable, but he saith 
clean contrary, that Christ showed his glorified body to St. 
Thomas palpable, to declare that it was of the same nature 
that it was of before his resurrection ; whereby it is plain, 
after St. Gregory^s mind, that if it were not palpable, it were 
not of the same nature. And St. Gregory siuth further in 
the same homily. ^' Egit miro modo superna dementia, ut 
discipulus ille dubitans, dum in Magistro suo vulnera pal- 
paret carnis, in nobis vulnera sanaret infidelitatis. Plus 
^' enim nobis Thomse infidelitas ad fidem, quam fides cre- 
dentium discipulorum profuit: quia dum ille ad fidem 
palpando reducitur, nostra mens omni dubitatione post- 
" posita in fide solidatur."^ ** The supernal clemency wrought 
<< marvellously, that the disciple which doubted, by groping 
*^ the wounds of flesh in his Master, should heal in us the 
<' wounds of infidelity. For the lack of faith in Thomas 
^^ profited more to our faith, than did the faith of the disci- 
ples that believed. For when he is brought to faith by 
groping, our mind is stablished in faith without all doubt- 
ing.*" And why should St. Gregory write thus, if our 
senses availed nothing unto our faith, nor could nothing 
judge of substances ? And do not all the old catholic authors 
prove the true humanity of Christ, by his visible conversa^ 
tion with us here in earth ? that he was heard preach, seen 



eating and drinking, labouring and sweating ? Do they not fiOOK 
also prove his resurrection by seeing, hearing, and groping of '^' 
him ? which if it were no proof, those arguments were made 
in vain against such heredcs that denied his true incarnation. 
And shall you now take away the strength of their argu- 
ments to the maintenance of those old condemned heresies, 
by your subtle sophistications? The touching and feeling 
of Christ^s hands, feet, and wounds, was a proof of his re- 
surrection, not as you say, to them that believed, but as St. 
Gregory saith, to them that doubted. 

9 And if all things that Christ did and spake to our out- 
ward senses, prove not that he was a natural man, (as you 
say with Marcion, Menander, Valentinus, Apollinaris, with 
other of like sort,) then I would know how you should con- 
fute the said heresies ? Mary, will you say peradventure, by 
the Scripture, which saith plainly, Verbum carojhctum est. 
But if they would say again, that he was called a man and 
flesh, because he took upon him the form of a man and 
flesh, and would say that St. Paul so declareth it, saying, 
Formam servi (iccipiefu; and would then say further, thatPbil.ii. 
form is the accidence of a thing, and yet hath the name of 
substance, but is not the substance in deed, what would you 
then say unto them ? If you deny that the forms and acci- 
dence be called substances, then go you from your own say- 
ing. And if you grant it, then will they avoid all the Scrip- 
tures that you can bring to prove Christ a man, by this ca- 
villation, that the appearances, forms, and aocidences of a 
man, may be called a man, as well as you say, that the 
forms and accidences of bread be called bread. And so pre- 
pare you certain propositions and grounds for heretics to 
build their errors upon, which after, when you would, you 
shall never be able to overthrow. 

And where you say, that Thomas touched truly Christ^s 
body glorified, how oould that be, when touching, as you 
say, is not of the substance, but of the accidents only ; and 
also Christ's body glorified, as you say, is neither viable 
nor palpable ? And whereas in deed you make Christ's acts 

10 illusions, and yet in words you pretend the contrary, call 

D d 3 



BOOK you not this illusion of our senses, when a thing appeareth 
' to our senses, which is not the same thing in deed ? When 
Jupiter and Mercury, as the comedy telleth \ appeared 
to Alcumena in the similitude of Amphitryo and Sosia, was 
not Alcumena deceived thereby ? And poticaries that sell 
juniper berries for pepper, being no pepper in deed, deceive 
they not the buyers by illusion of their senses ? Why then 
is not in the ministration of the holy communion an illusion 
of our senses, if our senses take for bread and wine that 
which is not so in deed ? 

Finally, whereas I required earnestly all the papists ton 
lay their heads together, and to show one article of our 
faith so directly contrary to our senses, that all our senses 
by daily experience shall affirm a thing to be, and yet our 
faith shall teach us the contrary thereunto ; where I say I 
required this so earnestly of you, and with such circum- 
stances, and you have yet showed none, I may boldly con- 
clude that you can show none. For sure I am, if you 
could, being so earnestly provoked thereunto, you would 
not have failed to show it in this place. As for the article 
of our resurrection, and of the feeding of angels serve no- 
thing for this purpose ; for my saying is of the daily ex- 
perience of our senses, and when they affirm a thing to be ; 
but the resurrection of our flesh, and the feeding of angels, 
be neither in daily experience of our senses, nor our senses 
affirm them not so to be. Now after the matter of our 
senses, followeth in my book the authorities of ancient 
writers in this wise. 

[See vol. ii. p. 820, 321. " Now forasmuch'' 

" nourish our bodies.''] 



I will spend do more words herein ; but having avoided this 
author's reasoning against transubstantiation^ now let us examine 
his authorities. First, he beginneth with Justine the Martyr, 
whose words be not truly by this author here reported, which be i 
these, truly translate out of the Greek. *' When the priest hath 

1 Plaatus in Ampkitryone. 





ended his thanksgiving and prayers, and all the people hath BOOK 
said Amen, they whom we call deacons, give to every one then ^*' 
a '* present a part of the bread and of the wine and water conse- 
'' crated, and carry part to those that be absent, and this is that 
** food which is among us called Eticharistia; whereof it is lawful 
for no man to be partaker, except he be persuaded those things 
to be true that he taught us, and be baptized in the water of 
" regeneration in remission of sins, and ordereth his life after the 
** manner which Christ hath taught. For we do not take these 
'* for common bread or drink, but like as Jesus Christ our Sa- 
'* viour, incarnate by the word of God, had flesh and blood for 
'* our salvation, even so we be taught the food, wherewith our 
3 *' flesh and blood be nourished by alteration, when it is consecrate 
" by the prayer of his word, to be the flesh and blood of the same 
" Jesus incarnate. For the Apostles in those their works which 
" be called Gospels, teach that Jesus did so command them, and 
'' after he had taken the bread, and ended his thanksgiving, said : 
*' Do this in my remembrance^ This is my body. And likewise 
*' taking the cup after he had given thanks, said : This is my 
*' blood, and did give them to his Apostles only." And here I 
I make an issue with this author, that he wittingly corrupteth An iasne. 
Justine in the allegation of him, who writeth not in such form of 
words as this author allegeth out of his second Apology, nor hath 
any such speech : '* The breads water, and wine, in this sacra- 
<^ ment, are meats ordained purposely to give thanks to God, and 
" therefore be called Eucharistia s** nor hath not these words, 
*' They be called the body and blood of Christ -" but hath in plain 
words, '* that we be taught this food consecrate by God*s word, 
*' to be the flesh and blood of Christ, as Christ in his incarnation 
" took flesh and blood :'* nor hath not this form of words placed 
to have that understanding, how the same meat and drink is 
changed into our flesh and blood. For the words in Justine, 
speaking of alteration of the food, have an understanding of the 
food, as it is before the consecration, showing how Christ used 
those creatures in this mystery, which by alteration nourish our 
flesh and blood. For the body of Christ, which is the very celes- 
tial substance of the host consecrate, is not changed, but without 
all alteration spiritually nourisheth the bodies and souls of them 
that worthily receive the same to immortality -, whereby appeareth 
this author's conclusion, " that bread and wine remain still, which 



BOOK "^^ turned into our flesh and blood," is not deduced upon Justine's 
H- words truly understanded, but is a gloss in?ented by this author, 
and perverting of Justine's words and their true meaning. Where- 
upon I may say and conclude, even as this author erreth in his 
reasoning of mother wit against transubstantiation, even so erveth 
lie in the first all^;ation of his authorities by plain misrqx»rtiiig ; 
let it be further named or thought on, as the thing deserveth. 


In this holy Martyr Justinus I do not go about to be a i 

translator of him, nor I bind not myself precisely to follow 

the form of his words, which no translator is bound unto, 

but I set forth only his sense and meaning. For where 

Justine hath a good long process in this matter, I take no 

more but that is directly to the purpose of transubstantia* 

tion, which is the matter being here in question. And the 

long words of Justine I knit up together in as few words 

as I can, rendering the sense truly, and not varying Ibr 

from the words. And this have I done, not willingly to 

corrupt Justine, as you maliciously deprave, (and there- 

Miue issue, upon will I join with you in your own issue^) but I do it 

L*5 oj to recite to the reader Justine^s mind shortly and plainly; 

whereas you professing to observe scrupulously the words, 

observe in deed neither the words nor the sentence of 

Justine. But this is your fashion; when you lack good 

matter to answer, then, to find something to fill up your 

book, you turn the matter into trifling and cavillation in 


You say that Justine hath not this speech, '* the bread, 
^^ water, and wine, in this sacrament, are meats ordmned pur* 
" posely to give thanks to God,^ and yet by your own trans- 
lation he hath the same thing in effect, and yet in deed the 
words be neither as you nor as I say, and as they be in 
Greek they cannot be expressed in English but by a para- 
phrasis : the words be these in Greek, rov eixapirniddvTQs 
iprov KoX otvov koI Hbarost and in our tongue, as near as may 
be Englished, signify thus, " the bread and wine and 
" water of thanksgiving,"", or as Ireneus saith, " in which 
*< thanks be given.*" And neither hath Justine this word 


*' sacrament^^ as I say, nor this word ^' consecrated^^ as you BOOK 
say. May not all men therefore evidently see that your "' 

chief study is to make cavillations and dallying in words ? 
And all the rest of my sayings, which you deny to be in 
Justine, be there very plainly in sense, as I will be judged 
by the indifferent reader. 

And what need I willingly to corrupt Justine, when his 
words after your allegation, serve more for my purpose 
against your feigned transubstantiation, than as I allege 
them myself. For if the deacons give to every one present 

a a part of the bread, wine, and water consecrated, and send 
part to them that be absent, as you report Justine^s words, 
do not then bread, wine, and water remain after consecra- 
tion, seeing that they be distributed to divers men in parts ? 
For I think you will not say that the body of Christ is di- 
vided into parts, so that one man receiveth an hand, and 
another a leg. And Justine saith further, that the same 

3 food of bread, wine, and water, called Eucharisiiay nourish- 
eth our flesh and blood by alteration, which they could not 
do, if no bread, wine, nor water, were there at all. 

But here is not to be passed over one exceeding great 
craft and untruth in your translation, that to cast a mist be- 
fore the reader^s eyes, you alter the order of Justine^s words 
in that place where the pith of the matter standeth. For 
where JusUne saith of the food of bread, wine, and water, 
after the consecration, that they nourish our flesh and blood 
by alteration, the nourishment which Justine putteth after 
consecration, you untruly put it before the consecration, 
and so wilfully and craftily alter the order of Justinus^ Mine israe. 
words, to deceive the reader ; and in this point will I join ["S^oJ 
an issue with you. Is such craft and untruth to be used of 
bishops ? and that in matters of faith and religion, whereof 
they pretend and ought to be true professors ? But I mar- 
vel not so much at your sleights in this place, seeing that in 
the whole book throughout you seek nothing less than the 
truth. And yet all your sleights will not serve you, for 
how can the food, called Eucharistia^ nourish before the 

D d 4 


BOOK consecration, seeing it is not eaten until after the consecra- 
"' tion ? 

The next author in my book is Irene, whom I allege 

[See vol. ii. p. 821. ** Next him was Irenaeus^— ^'* we 
" do use.''] 




Next Justine is Irene, in the allegation of whom this author 
maketh also an untrue report, who hath not this form of words 
in the fourth book, Contra Valentinum, that ** the bread wherein we 
** give thanks unto God, although it be of the earthy yet when the 
*' name of God is called upon, it is not then common bread, but 
the bread of thanksgiving, having two things in it, one earthly, 
and the other heavenly.** This is Irene alleged by this author, 
who I say writeth not in such form of words. For his words be 
these : " Like as the bread which is of the earthy receiving the 
calling of God, is now no common bread, but Eucharistia^ 
consisting of two things, earthly and heavenly, so our bodies 
receiving Eucharistiat be no more corruptible.** These be i 
Irene's words, where Irene doth not call the bread receiving the 
calling of God, the bread of thanksgiving, but Eucharistia^ and in 
this Eucharistia he showeth how that, that he calleth the heavenly 
thing, is the body and blood of Christ, and therefore saith in his 
fifth book°> : ** When the chalice mixed, and the bread broken, 
*' receive the word of God, it is made Eucharistia of the body 
** and blood of Christ, of which the substance of our flesh is 
" stayed and increased. And how say they that our flesh is not 
" able to receive God*s gift, who is eternal life ; which flesh is 
*' nourished with the body and blood of Christ V* These be also 
Irene's words, whereby appeareth what he meant by the heavenly 

"* [Both Craniuer and Gardyner, with others of their contemporaries 
who wrote on this controversy, were misled in the interpretation of this 
passage by the incorrectness of the Latin version, the only form in 
which it was then circulated. But it is extant in the original Greek, toge- 
ther with great part of the chapter to which it belong^ in Jo. Damas- 
cene, and was nrst printed from thence by P. Halloix, in his Zi/e ^ 
Irendtus, For the passage as it stood in the Latin version, see Fisher, 
Bp. of Rochester, Agairut (Ecolanq>adiuSy lib. iv. cap. 93; Cranmer, 
Defence, vol. ii. p. 331. 373; and Peter Martjr, De Eucharistia^ Obj. 
155. For the Greek original, see Authorities m the Appendix.] 


thing in EucharisHa, which ia the very presence of Christ's body BOOK 
and blood. And for the plain testimony of this fiuth, this Irene ^^' 
hath been commonly ali^;ed, and specially of Meiancthon to 
GScolampadius, as one roost ancient and most plainly testifying 
the same. So as his very words, truly a)l^;ed, overthrow this 
author in the impugnation of Christ's real presence in the sacra- 
ment, and therefore can nothing help this authors purpose against 
transubstantiation. Is not this a goodly and godly entry of this 
author, in the Grst two authorities that he bringeth in, to corrupt 
them both ? 


Who seeth not, that as you did before in Justine, so 
again in Irene, you seek nothing else but mere cavillations 
and wrangling in words ? Is not EttcAarisHa called in Eng- 
ilish thanksgiving? If it be not, tell you what it is called 
in English. And doth not Irene say, ** Panes in quo gratise 
acts sunt;"" that is to say, ^' bread wherein thanks be 
given ?^ what have I offended then in Englishing JSucAom- 
tiam thanksgiving ? Do not I write to Englishmen, which 
understand not what this Greek word EticharisHa meaneth ? 
What great offence is it then in me to put it into English, 
that Englishmen may understand what is siud ? Should I 
do as you do, put Greek for English, and write so obscurely 
that Englishmen should not know the author^s meaning ? 

And do you not see how much the words of Ireneus, by 
you alleged, make against yourself? These be his words 
after your citation: *^When the chalice mixed, and the 
^' bread broken, receive the word of God, it is made Et^ 
charisHa of the body and blood of Christ, of which the 
substance of our flesh is stayed and increased.^ Doth not 
Irene say here phunly, that the chalice mixed, and the 
bread broken after the word of Crod, which you call the 
words of consecration, is made Eucharistia of the body and 
blood of Christ, and not the body and blood of Christ? 
And saith he not further, that they stay and increase the 
substance of our bodies? But how can those things stay 
and increase our bodies, which be transubstantiated and 
gone before we receive them ? And have you forgotten now 


BOOK in Irene, what you said in the next leaf before in Justine, 
^^' that the alteration and nourishment by the food of bread 

and wine was understand before the consecration, which 
you confess now to be after the consecration ? And when 
you thus obscure the author'^s words, perverting and cor- 
rupting both the words and senses, yet shall you conclude 
your untrue dealing with these words concerning me, ** Is 
^^ not this a goodly and godly entry of this author, in the 
^^ first two authorities that he bringeth in, to corrupt them 
" both ?" Now foUoweth Origene next in my book. 

[See vol. ii. p, 821, 822. " Shortly after'' " avwleth.''] 


Origeue. As for Origene in his own words saith, the matter of the bread i 
remaineth ; which as I have before opened, it may be granted, but 
yet he termeth it not, as this author doth, to call it material bread. 
When God formed Adam of clay, the matter of the clay remained 
in Adam, and yet the material clay remained not, for it was 
altered into another substance ; which I speak not to compare 
equally the forming of Adam to the sacrament, but to show it not 
to be all one, to say the material bread, and the matter of bread. 
For the accidents of bread may be called the matter of bread, but s 
not the material bread, as 1 have somewhat spoken thereof before: 
but such shifts be used in this matter, notwithstanding the im- 
portance of it. 


What should I tarry much in Origene, sedng that you i 
ocmfess that he saith the matter of bread remaineth ; and 
Origene saith, that the meat which is sanctified, *^ juxta id 

quod habet materiale, in ventrem abit;^ that is to say, '* as 

concerning the material part tha:eof, goeth into the belly .^ 
So that by Origen^s teaching both the bread and the material 
part of bread remain. So that your example of day re- 
lieveth you nothing in this your answer unto Origene. 

But when you see that this shift will not serve, then you a 
fly to another, and say that the accidents of bread be cidled 
the matter of bread, which is so shameful a shift, as all that 
have any maimer of knowledge, may plainly see jroar maiii« 



feat impud^icy. But many such shifts you ^'use in this BOOK 
*^ matter, notwithstanding the importance of it^ Now let us ^^' 
come to Cyprian, of whom I write in this manner. 

[See vol. ii. p. 888, 888. « After Origen'* ♦* for our 

« rins.'*] 


St. Cyprian's words do not impugn transubstantiation, for Cyprian, 
they tend only to show that wine is the creature appointed to the 
celebration of this mystery, and therefore water only is no due 
matter according to Christ's institution. And as the name wine 
must be used before the consecration, to show the truth of it 
then, so it may also be used for a name of it after, to show what 
it was, which is often used. And in one place of Cyprian by this 
author here alleged, it appeareth St. Cyprian, by the word wine, 
signifieth the hmvenly wine of the vineyard of the Lord of Sar 
haoth, calling it new wine» and alluding therein to David. And 
this doth Cyprian show in these words, ** How shall we drink 
** with Christ new wine of the creature of the vine ; if in the 
** sacrifice to God the Father and Christ we do not offisr wine ?** 
Is not here mention of new wine of the creature of the vine > 
what new wine can be, but the blood of Christ, the very wine 
consecrate by God*s omnipotency, of the creature of the vine 
offered ? And therefore this one place may give us a lesson in 
Cyprian, that as he useth the word " wine** to signify the heavenly 
drink of the blood of Christ, made by consecration, of the creature 
of wine 3 so when he nameth the bread consecrate bread, he 
meaneth the heavenly bread Christ, who is the bread of life. 
And so Cyprian can make nothing by those words against tran- 
subatantiation, who writeth plainly of the change of the bread by 
God's omnipoteney into the flesh of Christ, as shall after I4>pear, 
where this author goeth about to answer to him. 


Cyprian^s words tend not only to show that wine is the 
creature appointed to the celebration of the mystery^ but 
that it is also there present, and drunken in the mystery. 
For these be his words: *'It cannot be thou^t, that 
<< ChrisCa blood is in the cup, when wine is not in the cup, 


BOOK *' whereby the blood of Christ is showed.'*^ And again he 
saith : " It was wine that Christ called his blood," and that 
'^ it is dear that Christ^s blood is not offered, if there be no 
<< wine in the chalice.'*' And further he saith : '^ How shall 
'^ we drink with Christ new wine of the creature of the vine^ 
^' if in the sacrifice of Grod the Father and of Christ, we do 
*' not offer wine ?" In these words Cyprian saith not, that 
Christ is the wine which we drink, but that with Christ we 
drink wine that cometh of the vine tree, and that Chrisf s 
blood is not there, when wine is not there. And where is 
now your transubstantiation, that taketh away the wine? 
For take away the wine, and take away, by Cyprian'^s mind, 
the blood of Christ also. 

But lest any man should stumble at Cyprian's words, 
where he seemeth to say that the blood of Christ should be 
really in the cup^ he saith nor meaneth no such thing, but 
that it is there sacramentally or figuratively. And his mean- 
ing needeth none other gathering, but of his own words, 
that follow next after in the same sentence, that by the 
wine the blood of Christ is showed. And shortly after he 
saith, that the cup which the Lord offered was wine, and 
that it was wine that Christ called his blood. Now come we 
to Emissene, your principal stay, in whom is your chief 
glory. Of him thus I write. 

[See vol. ii. p. 323, 3S4. ^* Eusebius Emissenus" 

blood of Christ.''] 



EmiMeue. As touching Emissene, by whose words is expressly testified 
the truth of the real presence of Christ in the sacrament, and 
also the sense of the doctrine of transubstantiation, this author 
roaketh himself bold over him, and so bold that he dare corrupt i 
him ; which Emissene writeth not, that man is turned into the 

An iMue. body of the Church. And here I make an issue with this author, 
that Emissene hath not that word of "turning** in that place, and 
man to be turned into the body of the Church is no convenient 
speech, to signify a change in him that is r^enerate by baptism. 
He in deed that is thrust out of the chancel for his misdemeanour 


in service time, may be said turaed into the body of the church. BOOK 
But Emissene speaketh not so here. But because the same Emis- ^^' 

a sene, declaring the mystery of the sacrament, saith the visible 
creatures be turned into the substance of the body of Christ, 
this author thought it would sound gaily well, to the con fusion 
of that true doctrine of turning, to speak in baptism of the turn- 
ing of a man into the body of the Church. And it may be com- 
monly observed in this author, when he allegeth any authority of 
others, he bringeth forth the same in such form of words as he 
would have them, and not as they be, for the most part or very 
often ; and once of purpose were over often in so high a matter 
as this is. 

And yet in this Emissene's authority, after all the pain taken 
to reforge him, Emissene's doctrine plainly confoundeth this au- 
thors teaching. This author maketh a note, that there is in man 
baptized nothing changed outwardly, and therefore in the sacra- 

3ment neither; and it must be granted. For the doctrine of 
transubstantiation teacheth not in the sacrament any outward 
change. For the substance of the bread and wine is an in- 
ward nature, and so is substance of one de6ned. And to speak 
of the thing changed, then as in man the change is in the soul, 
which is the substance of man : so far the thing changed in the 
visible creatures should be also changed, and is changed ; the 
substance of the bread and wine to answer therein to the other. 

4 And we must consider how this comparison of the two changes is 
made as it were by proportion : wherein each change hath his 
special end and term, " whereunto,*' and therefore according to 
the term and end hath his work of change, special and several 
both by God*8 work. Thus I mean, the visible creatures hath 
their end and term, *' whereunto** the change is made, the very 
body and blood of Christ ; which body being a true body, we 
must say is a corporal substance. The soul of man hath his end 
and term, a spiritual alteration, incorporai, to be r^enerate the 
son of God. And then the doctrine of this Emissene is plain 
thus, that each change is of like truth ; and then it foUoweth, that 
if the change of man's soul in baptism be true, and not in a figure, 
the change likewise in the sacraments is also true and not in a 
figure. And if man's soul by the change in baptism be in deed, 
that is to say, really made the son of God, then is the substance 
of the bread, which is as it were the soul of the breads (I am 


BOOK bold here in speech to use the word soul^ to express proportion 
' of the comparison ;) but even so is the inward nature of the bread 
which is substance, turned and changed into the body of Chrbt, 
being the term and end of that change. And here I say so, not 
to declare the manner, but the truth of the end; that is to say, as 
really and in deed the change is in the substance of bread as in 
the soul of man ; both these changes be marvellous, and both be 
in the truth of their change, whereunto they be changed, of like 
truth and reality to be done in deed ; they resemble one another 
in the secrecy of the mystery, and the ignorance of our senses, for 
in neither b any outward change at all -, and therefore there was 
never man tripped himself more handsomely to take a fidl, than 
this author doth in this place, not only in corrupting evidently and 
notably the words of Emissene without purpose, whereby never- 
theless he showed his good will, but also by setting forth such 
niatttf, as overtumeth all his teaching at once. 

For now the author must say the change in man*s soul by 
baptism, to be there made the son of God, is but in 6gure and 
signification, not true and real in deed, or else grant the tme ca- 
tholic doctrine of the turn of the vbible creatures into the body 
and blood of Christ, to be likewise not in figure and signification, 
but truly, really, and in deed. And for the thing changed, as the 
soul of man, man*s inward nature, is ehanged, so the inward na« 
ture of the bread is changed. And then is that evasion taken 
away, which this author useth in another place of sacramental 
change, which should be in the outward part of the visible crea- 
tures to the use of signification. This author noteth the age of 
Emissen, and I note withal how plainly he writeth for confimi- 
ation of the catholic teaching, who indeed, because of his andent 
and plain writing for declaration of the matter in form of teaching 
without contention, is one, whose authority the Church hath 
much in allegaUon used to the conviction of such as have im* 
pugned the sacrament, either in the truth of the presence of 
Christ's very body, or transubstantiation ; for the speaking of the 
inward change doth point as it were the change of the substance 
of bread, with resembling thereunto the soul of man changed in 
baptism. Th